Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the absence through indisposition of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting.

Whereupon Major MILNER, The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS,proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair, as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Investitures (Personal Expenses)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning to what extent he has taken over from the Minister of Health responsibility for questions arising from the unofficial circular of 19th January last to the clerks of local authorities authorising them to pay on application fares and subsistence allowances for any person summoned to Buckingham Palace for an investiture, and for two of his friends, and to recover the amount from the Treasury; and whether, in view of the need for economy, he will stop these payments except on evidence of need.

The Minister of Local Government and Planning (Mr. Dalton): I shall be responsible from 31st March next, but I shall not depart from the precedent laid down 10 years ago of making contributions to the expenses of persons whom His Majesty has been graciously pleased to honour.

Mr. Keeling: Was not that a war-time precedent, and are not the people who receive these honours usually able and willing to pay their own expenses? Is this not a quite unnecessary extravagance?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, in my opinion it is not an unnecessary extravagance. It is a small expense, which can be well afforded to persons who have received these marks of distinction.

Boundary Alterations

Mr. Marlowe: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning what action is being taken by His Majesty's Government to deal comprehensively with the problem of altering local government boundaries and of creating new county boroughs.

Mr. Dalton: I would refer the hon. Member to my replies to the hon. and gallant Members for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus), and Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott), on 1st February last, and to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) on 6th February.

Mr. Marlowe: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the present situation is unsatisfactory because the Government are opposing private legislation on the ground that they are going to deal with the whole thing comprehensively themselves? It would be quite all right if the Government did anything, but as they have not dealt with the matter themselves, why should they not let local authorities look after their own business?

Mr. Dalton: I made observations on this subject in the Sheffield Extension Bill debate, when I said:
On the cold view of political realities there seems no prospect of a major Measure of local government reform passing through this House of Commons."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March. 1951; Vol. 485, c. 1649.]
To that view I adhere.

Mr. Marlowe: Is it not exactly the position that the Government are opposing local legislation and are not tackling the problem themselves?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir.

Non-County Boroughs (Private Legislation)

Mr. Marlowe: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning whether it is still the policy of His Majesty's Government to oppose private legislation promoted by non-county boroughs who seek powers to become county boroughs.

Mr. Dalton: I will consider any such proposal on its merits and on its demerits, particularly as regards the counties which would be affected.

Mr. Marlowe: Does not the same objection arise here as on my previous Question? Is it not the policy of the present Government to oppose private legislation which seeks to achieve county borough status? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that in my constituency of Hove, the ratepayers are carrying a disproportionate burden at this moment, and are having also to carry the major burden of the County of Sussex on their shoulders?

Mr. Dalton: If they got county borough status, the rest of the county would have to carry a disproportionate burden on its shoulders.

River Board Charges (West Hartlepool)

Mr. David Jones: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning what representations he has received from the West Hartlepool County Borough Council about the alleged unfair operation of the River Boards Act, 1948; and whether he proposes to take any action on the lines proposed.

Mr. Dalton: The council has protested against the charges falling on their ratepayers under this Act. But this matter was fully discussed when the Bill was going through Parliament, and I regret that I can hold no hope of amending legislation.

Mr. Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the authority are called upon to pay £3,300 by way of precept this year and that they claim that they have no advantage whatever from this Act. Will he have another look at the matter?

Mr. Dalton: It is no good my doing so. The only object of having another look at it would be to introduce amending legislation, but that is obviously not in the programme. I have great sympathy with the ratepayers of Hartlepool, but I think it will be found that they get some advantage.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Blitzed Cities (Building Licences)

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning if he will grant additional building licences to bomb-damaged cities in order to speed

up their building programmes and bring these cities in line with other cities that suffered no war damage.

Mr. Dalton: In blitzed cities, I must keep a balance between new housing and the rebuilding of banks, offices and shops in the central areas.

Brigadier Clarke: Does the Minister realise that his predecessor on 30th November said he was willing to consider any applications for additional licences for private building in bomb-damaged cities?

Mr. Dalton: I said before that I will consider any applications where it can be shown that the total allocation can be beaten by the authority concerned. If any authority can show that they can do better than the allocation given, I am always prepared to consider it by putting it on to their total and taking it away from those who cannot do it.

Brigadier Clarke: Is the Minister aware that we have a large number of unemployed in Portsmouth, and we could do with that extra building if the Minister would give us the licences?

Mr. Dalton: I say to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, as I have said to other hon. Gentlemen who have approached me on this matter, that if they can produce the evidence that more can be done, I shall very sympathetically consider it,

Redington Road, Hampstead

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning why he has decided that no houses in Redington Road, Hampstead, shall be converted for occupation by more than one family.

Mr. Dalton: I have made no such decision. I shall consider any proposal for conversion on its merits.

Lieut-Colonel Upton: In view of the number of large houses in this road that have been empty for years, before an application for consent to convert is rejected will my right hon. Friend make his voice heard to encourage the authority concerned to end this snobbish and indefensible ban on conversion in this particular road?

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the aspect of this matter which has aroused most indignation in Hampstead is the refusal of the London County Council to give permission for one of these large houses to be used as a nursing home for old people, on the ground that in their view the road must be kept exclusive to local citizens, who object to ambulances and patients?

Mr. Dalton: I would not believe all that story, but I am prepared to consider each case on its merits. As I told the hon. Gentleman on 13th March, I am in favour of the conversion of dwelling-houses into flats in certain instances.

Farm Workers

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning how many applications for licences to erect houses for farm workers, which have the backing of the agricultural executive committee, are awaiting issue by the rural district councils in Berkshire; and if he will allow licences outside the normal quota to be given to meet these cases.

Mr. Dalton: I have no information regarding the first part of the Question. As to the second part, I will consider on merits any case submitted by a local authority for altering the present ratio in their area.

Mr. Hurd: If the Minister has no information, would it not be a good thing for him to get it so as to ensure that the policy of giving priority to agricultural workers' houses will be put into effect?

Mr. Dalton: It is not for me to get it. If the local authorities like to inform me or approach me, I am always available. This information is in the hands of the local authorities.

Mr. Baldwin: Is the Minister aware that in view of the approaching call-up of young men there will be a great labour shortage in the countryside? Is he further aware that to replace that shortage it is necessary that we should get some more cottages in rural areas for the agricultural workers who would replace those called up?

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning if he will allow the rural district

councils of Norfolk additional licences beyond the normal quota so as to permit the erection of houses for farm workers.

Mr. Dalton: As I have already stated, I am willing to consider on merits any case submitted by a local authority for altering the present ratio in their area.

Brigadier Medlicott: Can the right hon. Gentleman make this new principle as flexible as possible? In other words, will he see that there is not merely an automatic rule, but the application of intelligence?

Mr. Dalton: There has never been an automatic rule. I am trying to make this as widely known as possible by answering questions on the subject, in this House, and by stating outside what I have said here.

Building Bylaws (Committee)

Mr. Walker-Smith: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning when publication may be expected of revised model building bylaws.

Mr. Dalton: I am setting up a committee to advise me on this subject, and have invited local authority associations and professional bodies to submit names.

Building Ratio

Mr. Alport: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning how many applications have been received from local authorities by his Department to alter the existing ratio between houses built by the council and those built under private licence; and on how many occasions he has given his approval for this to be done.

Mr. Dalton: Seventy-five, of which five have been approved.

Mr. Alport: Would the right hon. Gentleman say on what principles he approves or otherwise of applications? Is he aware that the regional officers do not encourage, and in fact discourage, local authorities from submitting applications of this kind?

Mr. Dalton: I am not sure, on the last part of the supplementary question, whether that is so. I have said several times since I have occupied my present office that I am quite willing, on case shown, to increase the ratio. There is no


abstract principle in the matter. It is just a question of what representations local authorities make.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Is the Minister aware that in the areas of the Orpington District Council and the Dartford Rural District Council builders tell me that they have men and materials to build several hundred houses in a year, but that they are not allowed to do so?

Mr. Dalton: I do not think that can be true, but if the hon. Gentleman will give some hard evidence, I will look into the matter.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the right hon. Gentleman grant the licences?

Mr. Dalton: Let me see the evidence.

Nissen Huts

Mr. Deedes: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning how many Nissen type huts in camps under his control are being used as dwelling-houses; and how many were being so used when he took over these camps.

Mr. Dalton: About 37,000 huts in the total, but I cannot say how many of these are Nissens.

Mr. Deedes: Is the Minister satisfied that the elimination of these camps is proceeding fast enough to keep pace with the deterioration?

Mr. Dalton: I am trying to encourage that as far as possible. It is obviously most undesirable that these camps should continue indefinitely.

Mr. Deedes: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning how far in assessing future housing demands his Department is able to calculate the life of a Nissen type hut; and what the basis of his calculation is.

Mr. Dalton: The effective life of a Nissen hut depends on how it is treated. No one figure would give a true picture.

Old Persons' Home, Lancaster

Mr. Fitzroy Maclean: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning whether he will agree to the use of the premises in Regent Street, Lancaster, lately vacated by the district nurses, as a home for the elderly people

of the Lancaster area, under the provision of the Ministers of Health and National Insurance as set out in the National Assistance Act, 1947.

Mr. Dalton: As an appeal by the Lancashire County Council against a decision by the Lancaster City Council is now before me, the hon. Member will appreciate that I cannot comment on it at this stage.

Sub-letting (Rents)

Mr. Alport: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning whether, in view of the decision of local authorities to charge additional rent for council houses in which more than one family are accommodated or in which the tenant takes any lodgers, he will consider taking the necessary steps to extend this principle to rent-restricted accommodation providing that adequate safeguards exist against overcrowding and against exploitation of the tenant by the landlord.

Mr. Dalton: This would require legislation for which time is not available.

Mr. Alport: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that there is a very good case for this amending legislation, in view of the deterioration to privately-owned dwellings over the last few years?

Mr. Dalton: The suggestion of raising rents or permitting the raising of rents over the vast area covered by the Rent Restriction Acts is a major operation upon which I am not prepared to embark.

Mr. Alport: This proposal is not for a review of the whole problem of rent restriction but for amending one aspect of it, with a view to assisting housing throughout the country?

Farmhouses (Improvement Grants)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning if he will take steps to speed up the award of grants for building work to be carried out on farmhouses in Kent, as at the moment there is a considerable delay between the date of the application and the final decision.

Mr. Dalton: I assume the hon. Member is referring to improvement grants for farmhouses. If he will let me have particulars of any cases of alleged delay, I will look into them.

Rooms, London (Rents)

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning whether he is aware that tenants of long standing in hotels, boarding houses and apartment houses in London are being given notice to vacate their rooms so that they may be let at inflated rents to visitors to the Festival; and whether he will introduce legislation to deal with this matter.

Mr. Dalton: I can hold out no hope of such legislation.

Mr. Jeger: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in various areas in London there is a real feeling that this is a scandal which is growing as the weeks go by? Is he aware that I know several cases of people who are quite elderly and have lived in the houses for a considerable number of years—in one case 18 years—and that they are being kicked out at a week's notice to make room for Festival visitors at a rent four times the original rent?

Mr. Dalton: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the form of his Question is such that legislation would be required. The plain truth is that such legislation cannot be introduced now owing to the pressure on the timetable, even if a case could be made out for it.

Mr. Jeger: Can my right hon. Friend hold out any hope that the rent tribunals will be able to do anything in these matters?

Mr. Dalton: I have looked into that, but I am afraid that under the present law it is not possible. I would add that we want to make some revenue out of the visitors to the Festival.

Oral Answers to Questions — PLANNING

Local Authority Development Plans

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning how many applications he has received from local planning authorities for an extension of time for the submission of their development plan under Section 5 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.

Mr. Dalton: Five.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Are all applications automatically granted?

Mr. Dalton: Nothing is automatic. Intelligence is always used.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Has the exercise of the Ministerial intelligence resulted in some of these applications being granted?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir

Gipsies (Caravan Sites)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning if he can yet make a statement following his inquiries into the serious position that has developed for gipsies in finding places where they and their caravans can be accommodated without breaking the law.

Mr. Dalton: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary tells me that in most counties there is no serious problem. In a few places land occupied by gipsies is required for other purposes, but the gipsies should generally be able to find alternative sites.

Mr. Dodds: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the Romany race is persecuted and hounded between local authorities and the police? [HON. MEMBERS: "Harried."] Yes, harried or persecuted. The bylaw which permits them to be driven from a district, even when they have lived there for 20 or more years, takes no thought of whether another resting place can be obtained, and the position gets more serious week by week. Can my right hon. Friend do anything about it?

Mr. Dalton: Obviously there are two sides to this subject. The local authorities only want to put the land to the best and most effective use, and I do not want to intervene unduly in the activities of local authorities in this matter.

Major Legge-Bourke: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that some of the gipsies who have been moved can only be put on ground very close to permanent dwellings and that this has caused considerable offence to the occupants of those houses? Can he give an assurance that if fresh places can be found, they will be on land under the control of the county agricultural executive committees rather than of anybody else?

Mr. Dalton: I did say that I thought there were two sides to this matter, and the last supplementary question may illustrate that. I am not anxious to harry the local authorities unduly.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Is the Minister satisfied that the general position is not unnecessarily complicated by concurrent legislation on town planning and public-health? Will he look into the matter?

Mr. Dodds: In order to give chapter and verse for this diabolically cruel system practised by so-called Christian people, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Building-Lessor Schemes

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Works if he is aware of the disadvantages associated with the building-lessor scheme; and if it is his intention to bring this to an end.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Stokes): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) on 19th February.

Mr. Shepherd: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the information for which I asked—whether he proposes to cease these operations?

Mr. Stokes: If the hon. Member will study the reply, he will see that no more building-lessor schemes have been authorised. They were introduced in the first place to release as quickly as possible other requisitioned premises.

Government Offices

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Works the total amount which the Government has committed itself to pay since the end of the war to owners of new buildings erected for occupation by Government Departments; and whether this amount is included in the figures published in the Economic Survey.

Mr. Stokes: On the 48 buildings to which my Department is already committed, the liability to charge on public funds amounts to a total annual rental of just over £1 million and a capital expenditure of about £750,000 on occupational

fittings. Other capital expenditure is the responsibility of the lessors and not a commitment on public funds, although an estimate of the amount is included in the figures for capital investment on Government building published in the Economic Surveys.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Works how many square feet of floor space in privately-owned premises are now under requisition for Government office use; and how many square feet of floor space are under construction for such use.

Mr. Stokes: My Department held 6,348,000 square feet of accommodation on requisition for office purposes at the end of 1950. Approximately 3,157,000 square feet of office accommodation is under construction by my Department or by private developers for lease to my Department.

Mr. Keeling: Can the Minister say what sort of premises there is no hope of de-requisitioning? Is it hotels, houses or what?

Mr. Stokes: A little bit of both.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Works whether the licences he granted in 1950 amounting to £4,394,000 for building offices to be let to the Government have been reviewed in relation to the defence programme and civilian housing.

Mr. Stokes: As I informed the hon. and gallant Member in my reply to his Question on 30th January last. I consider it would be unreasonable to cancel licences once they have been granted and the developer has made his arrangements, save in the most exceptional circumstances. I understand that all this work-has in fact been started.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend completely satisfied that the substantial building programme which he has so generously authorised will have no adverse effect on what I hope he will agree is the urgent need of civilian building and the defence programme?

Mr. Stokes: I am surprised at my hon. and gallant Friend. He is constantly complaining to me that I am mean about it. I cannot be both mean and generous at the same moment.

Mr. J. H. Hare: asked the Minister of Works how much extra accommodation he has been requested to supply for Government Departments in London during the past three months; which Departments have made such requests; and how many additional personnel are involved in each request.

Mr. Stokes: During the past three months I have been asked to' supply about 59,500 square feet of office accommodation and about 416,000 square feet of storage and special accommodation for Government Departments in London. It does not follow from that fact that requests have been made that extra accommodation will be provided. Some demands are met by concentration of staffs in existing accommodation. These figures must not be taken to represent the full demands of the re-armament programme. I will, with permission, circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hare: In view of the urgent need for economy in the expenditure of Government Departments, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that we should be talking in terms of reduction, rather than having to face these enormous demands for extra personnel as well as for extra accommodation?

Mr. Stokes: I am responsible only for my own Department and I provide accommodation for others on demand. I can only assure the hon. Gentleman that I am very conscious of the need for economy.

Mr. Hare: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to impress that on his colleagues.

Following are the details:


OFFICE ACCOMMODATION


Department
Approximate area required (sq. ft.)
Approximate number of staff


Air Ministry
11,000
110


Ministry of Defence
1,000
10


Ministry of National Insurance
1,500
25


Stationery Office
3,000
30


Ministry of Supply
40,000
500


Treasury
3,000
20



59,500
695

OTHER ACCOMMODATION


Department
Approximate area required (sq. ft.)
Purpose


Ministry of Food
280,000
Storage


Home Office
50,000
Storage


Post Office
16,000
Telephone Exchange and Branch Post Offices.


Board of Trade
70,000
Storage



416,000

Houses (Disposal)

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Minister of Works why it is the policy of his Department to offer houses, of which it has to dispose, to sell and not to let.

Mr. Stokes: All property, other than for the public service, is held by my Ministry for disposal only. The Ministry is not a housing authority and when it has houses for disposal, it tries to sell them outright to the local authority.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that his Department is rather more expeditious in negotiations in future, because it causes considerable annoyance to would-be tenants when houses remain empty for years?

Mr. Stokes: Yes, Sir. certainly.

No. 2, Park Street

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Works what sum was paid in respect of the sale of intoxicating liquors at 2, Park Street, in lieu of payment of monopoly value; and by whom, and to whom, this sum has been paid.

Mr. Stokes: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Sutcliffe) on 20th February. The amount is not yet finally determined.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps are being taken to determine this amount in view of the fact that he has been conducting sales, as he told the House a little while ago, for several months already?

Mr. Stokes: There is really nothing to worry about. The sum of £400 has been


paid on deposit and we are in consultation with the Board of Customs and Excise on the matter.

Premises, Surbiton

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Works when premises at 17–21, Claremont Road, Surbiton, were first taken over by the Ministry of National Insurance; for what purpose; what was the value of the work done to these premises on behalf of the Ministry of National Insurance; what is the rent now paid; and for what purpose they are now used.

Mr. Stokes: These premises were taken over by my Ministry on 12th November, 1947, and adapted at a cost of £2,169 for the use of the Ministry of National Insurance as a local office. It is not the practice to disclose rents paid for premises by the Ministry. The premises were derequisitioned on 18th January, 1951.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long the Ministry of National Insurance were in occupation?

Mr. Stokes: I think about two years, but I am not quite sure.

Mr. Harrison: Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether, when he derequisitions this sort of property, he gives the local authority the first chance of purchasing it?

Mr. Stokes: I do not know, Sir.

Yorkshire Electricity Board Building (Inquiry)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Works, as he is not prosecuting the Yorkshire Electricity Board, who have overspent their building allowance by £39,000, if he will in future treat all other firms or individuals who transgress in the same way with the same leniency.

Mr. Stokes: As explained in the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to a Question on this subject yesterday, I am not responsible for the application of the Defence Regulation to an electricity authority. Furthermore, it is not for me to decide whether or not proceedings should be taken. As regards work which is licensed under the Regulation, I take full account of the particular circumstances in which an apparent breach of

the Regulation has occurred when considering whether I should report the case to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mr. Bossom: Did not the Minister himself say in this House that he was not going to prosecute in this instance, and, in the circumstances, will he treat private people in the same way?

Mr. Stokes: It is really quite impossible for me to make any further comment. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General explained yesterday, the matter is under examination, and it would be improper for me to comment on any remark that I may have made previously.

Mr. Kaberry: asked the Minister of Works what advice he has tendered to the Minister of Fuel and Power upon the question of the prosecution of the Yorkshire Electricity Board and its officials and others arising out of an admitted contravention by the Board of the building regulations, Defence Regulation 56A, to an amount of at least £42,000; upon what facts that advice was based; what inquiries he caused to be made; and what reports he called for.

Mr. Stokes: In view of the inquiries which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has instituted, as indicated in his reply to a Question on this subject yesterday, I think the hon. Member will agree that it would be inappropriate for me to discuss these matters by way of Question and answer at present. I must not, however, be taken as accepting any of the allegations or implications in the Question.

Mr. Kaberry: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on two occasions in the House the Minister of Fuel and Power has said that his right hon. Friend had advised him that no proceedings should be taken——

Mr. Paton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it desirable that Questions of this character should be put in connection with this case in view of the statement made yesterday?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If they are in order from the point of view of the Table. I am afraid that I have no option but to accept them.

Mr. Kaberry: The Minister of Fuel and Power has stated that he looks upon


the right hon. Gentleman as expert in these matters. Upon what evidence does the right hon. Gentleman work in giving expert information?

Mr. Stokes: I suspect that my right hon. Friend is being misquoted, but, anyway, it is quite impossible for me to explain in detail what happened without prejudicing what is now under consideration. The matter is quite simple and perfectly clear, and the truth will out in the end.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: If there is no prosecution in this case, would the Minister assure the House that there will be no prosecution in the case of the Ilkley War Memorial being completed without a licence?

Mr. Stokes: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not correct. The Attorney-General stated yesterday that immediately following the Adjournment debate he had asked the Director of Public Prosecutions to institute inquiries. Whether a prosecution follows or not depends entirely upon what the Director of Public Prosecutions finds.

Hotel, Harrogate

Mr. York: asked the Minister of Works whether the negotiations for the de-requisition of the Hotel St. George, Harrogate, are now finished.

Mr. Stokes: No, Sir. As I stated in my reply of 27th February to the hon. Member, de-requisitioning is dependent on negotiations for alternative premises, which are proceeding satisfactorily.

Mr. York: Could not the right hon. Gentleman do something to hurry this matter, which has been going on since 23rd November? Does not he realise the difficulties caused to local authorities who are conducting negotiations with sundry Government Departments?

Mr. Stokes: The matter really is receiving attention, and I hope that the derequisitioning will take place by the end of the year. I cannot say more than that.

Mr. York: That is a hopeless proposition to make. Will the Minister consider receiving a deputation so that he can be fully informed of all the repercussions as a result of his lack of speed in the matter?

Mr. Stokes: I think I know the case. Before I receive a deputation, perhaps it would be a good thing if I had another look at it.

Ministry's Overseas Employees

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Minister of Works the total number of people employed by him outside the British Isles; and what was the cost to the Exchequer in the years 1939 and 1949, respectively.

Mr. Stokes: The number of staff employed abroad is 115, of whom 72 are locally engaged. The cost of staff overseas in 1939 was £8,500. compared with £120,000 in 1949.

Brigadier Clarke: Will the Minister say to what he attributes the increase?

Mr. Stokes: Yes, Sir; to a vast increase of work. The amount undertaken in 1949 was over £2 million. A great deal of war damage had to be repaired. I have informed the House that in the past 12 months I have reduced the overseas staff by 28 people and salaries by £15,400.

London Statues (Cleaning)

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Minister of Works if he will arrange to have the principal London statues for which he is responsible cleaned for the Festival of Britain.

Mr. Stokes: Most statues in the care of my Department are cleaned at intervals of about three months; the exceptions are Nelson and the Duke of York which, being at the top of high columns, are cleaned about once in 25 years. I do not consider that there is any need for special cleaning for the Festival of Britain.

Brigadier Clarke: Will the Minister arrange to have Nelson's Column cleaned, and, if necessary, floodlit so that visitors arriving for the Festival of Britain will realise that Britain once ruled the waves?

Mr. Stokes: I think I am right in saying that it is already floodlit. I can only repeat that I do not think it is necessary to alter the programme which we already have for statue cleaning.

Professor Savory: Will the right hon. Gentleman make the beautiful statue of William III in St. James's Square the


object of his special solicitude in order that the numerous visitors from Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States may see it to its best advantage?

Mr. Stokes: I will go and have a look and see what it looks like.

Charles House, Kensington (Electricity Consumption)

Mr. Baker White: asked the Minister of Works how many units of electricity were consumed during the months of January and February in the Government offices known as Charles House, Kensington.

Mr. Stokes: One hundred and seventy-seven thousand four hundred and fifty-seven, Sir.

Mr. Baker White: Is the Minister aware that even people who work in the building itself think that too many lights are used in it? Is he aware that at 5.30 p.m. yesterday, although the building was empty, nearly all the lights were still on?

Mr. Stokes: It is always a problem. I can only say that I am not satisfied and that representations have been made to the Departments concerned.

Building Regulations (Contraventions)

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the Minister of Works on how many occasions have building regulations been contravened in the past four years by private individuals, local authorities, private companies, nationalised boards and Government Departments, respectively; and in how many cases were prosecutions instituted.

Mr. Stokes: In the four years 1947–50 my Department and local authorities investigated 19,489 cases of alleged contravention of Defence Regulation 56A. Records do not show the type of concern involved in the alleged contraventions where no proceedings were instituted, and the information could not be obtained without an undue amount of research. Proceedings were instituted in 1,189 cases involving 1,523 private individuals, 507 private companies and two boards of nationalised industries.

Nissen Huts, Crook (Disposal)

Mr. Murray: asked the Minister of Works in view of the fact that Leagues of Youth and other organisations in the Crook area, County Durham, are at pre sent unable to find suitable meeting places and that there are vacant Nissen huts belonging to his Department which will soon become useless unless they are disposed of, if he will now arrange for the sale of these huts.

Mr. Stokes: I assume that my hon. Friend refers to huts at the former Miners' Hostel, Crook, part of which, after it had been occupied by squatters, was- taken over by the local authority as a temporary housing estate. Last week the local authority asked my Department to dispose of a number of huts which have become vacant and these will be sold in competition. Any interested bodies will then have the opportunity to bid.

Mr. Murray: Is the Minister aware that his reply will give great satisfaction to the young people in the Crook area, because they have been wanting these huts and have been dissatisfied about the waste of public money in this connection? Can the Minister state when this is likely to take place?

Mr. Stokes: No. As I explained to my hon. Friend in my answer. I was only asked to tackle the job a week ago and we are, as usual, acting with great expedition.

Faversham Market Hall

Mr. Percy Wells: asked the Minister of Works why Faversham town hall has been scheduled as an ancient monument.

Mr. Stokes: Faversham Market Hall is an interesting early 18th century building and the Ancient Monuments Board for England advised me that it was a monument the preservation of which was of national importance.

Mr. Wells: Is the Minister aware that this is a comparatively modern building. having been started in 1814?

Mr. Stokes: That is not my information. My information is that it is 18th century, and that would be some time before 1800.

Sir Herbert Williams: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the town hall is a better prospect than the hon. Member?

Oral Answers to Questions — PALACE OF WESTMINSTER

Churchill Arch

Sir Richard Acland: asked the Minister of Works whether he is aware that large numbers of visitors on Saturdays pass through the Churchill arch without noticing that it is the Churchill arch; and if he will arrange to display, on days when the Palace of Westminster is open to the public, a suitable notice saying, "Churchill Arch."

Mr. Stokes: There are many points and objects of interest to visitors passing through the Palace of Westminster, and I see no reason to draw special attention to the arch in question in the manner suggested.

Sir R. Acland: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this arch is unique in the world? Is he also aware that the custodian on duty reports that on any Saturday scores of visitors, having walked into the Chamber through the arch and out again through the arch, proceed to ask the custodian where the arch is? Does that not indicate the need for some notice drawing attention to it?

Mr. Stokes: I do not think so. Of course, I am in the hands of the House in this matter and if the House wishes it, something will be done. I should have thought it was a dangerous precedent to set. We shall have labels all over the place unless we are careful.

Mr. David Griffiths: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that it is not necessary for the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) to create any publicity for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill)?

Late Sittings

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Works how many members of his staff were compelled to work between 2.13 a.m. and 5.41 a.m. on 9th March, 1951, in consequence of the House of Commons being in session during those hours; how long was each of these persons on duty from the commencement of his duties on 8th March, 1951, to the cessation of his

duties on 9th March, 1951; and what was the additional cost entailed in this respect and in respect of additional lighting.

Mr. Stokes: Sixteen men were on duty, four for 17½ hours each; nine for 18 hours; one for 21¼ hours and two for 23½ hours. The additional cost was £92, of which £54 was for wages and £38 for lighting. I am looking further into the arrangements for long Sittings.

Mr. Janner: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he will consult with his colleagues who are responsible for other people who are employed in this House at those times when there is an admitted pure waste? Will he tell the House whether he can at some time or other give us a total of the men employed, the amount of money wasted, and how much it has cost both for lighting and for accommodation here in those hours?

Mr. Stokes: If my hon. Friend studies my answer, I think he will be able to make that arithmetical calculation for himself, but perhaps these Sittings will not be so frequent in the future.

Captain Waterhouse: Is it not the case that the Government are wasting millions in many other directions, and is it not absurd, therefore, to try to curtail free discussion in this way?

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Works what is the total cost per hour to his Department caused by Sittings of the House after 10.30 p.m.; and if he will specify the items which make up that total cost.

Mr. Stokes: The total hourly cost is £10 before midnight, and £12 10s. after midnight. Of this £4 7s. up to midnight, and £6 15s. 8d. after midnight, is for wages; £4 10s. for electricity; 5s. for gas and, it is estimated, £1 for fuel.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister say whether these working hours and other arrangements are fixed by trade union agreement, and if so, to what union does the staff belong?

Mr. Stokes: This is all by arrangement and, as I said on the previous Question, I am looking into the problems connected with the late hours. However, the staff are perfectly happy with the arrangements and there have been no complaints.

Hon. Members: No!

Mr. Hughes: But do they belong to a union?

Mr. Stokes: I could not say.

Mr. David Jones: Does the charge of five shillings for gas include the unnecessary gas evaporated by the other side?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

National Savings Certificates (Value)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is today's nominal value, including accrued interest, of a National Savings Certificate purchased in August, 1945, for 15s.: and what is its real purchasing power allowing for the subsequent drop in the internal purchasing power of the £.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gaitskell): 17s. 9½d. and 13s. 9d. respectively.

Mr. Osborne: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think this is grossly unfair to the thrifty wage earner who has been supporting the National Savings movement, and could he not evolve some fairer method of paying back these people for the patriotism they have shown under more than one Government?

Mr. Gaitskell: If the hon. Gentleman is merely saying that prices have risen in the last five years, or in the last 15 years, I might agree with him. If he is suggesting that the person who has invested in National Savings is worse off, then it depends on what he might have done with the money. If he had spent it on drink, there might be a difference of opinion. If, on the other hand, he had put it in a stocking, he would have been better off to have bought Savings Certificates.

Mr. Harrison: Can my right hon. Friend say how this fall in value compares with the fall in value of other national currencies during the same period?

Mr. Gaitskell: The rise in prices here has been less than elsewhere.

Mr. Osborne: This is a very serious matter. Does the Chancellor think it really fair that a thrifty section of the

country should be paid back about 15s. in the pound? Can he not do something about it?

Mr. Gaitskell: He cannot be said to be worse off.

Mr. Osborne: Of course he is worse off.

Pound (Purchasing Power)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the internal purchasing power of the £ on 1st March, 1951, as compared with 20s. on 1stAugust, 1945.

Mr. Gaitskell: Information in respect of the dates in the Question is not available but it was about 15s. 6d. in February, 1951, as compared with 20s. over 1945 as a whole.

Mr. Osborne: Does the Chancellor agree with the "Economist" editorial at the week-end, that this year we are likely to see a catastrophic fall in the internal purchasing power of the pound?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That question does not arise.

Sir W. Smithers: Is not the short answer to all these questions that the philosophy of Socialism has ruined our national credit?

Purchase Tax (Tourists)

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take, in view of the approach of the tourist season, to simplify the purchase of goods in shops by visitors from abroad.

Mr. Gaitskell: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Browne) on 13th February.

Colonel Hutchison: What has happened to the schemes, thought out by the Dollar Exports Board and by trade and other organisations of that kind for simplifying the purchase of goods in shops by foreigners visiting this country? Have these schemes been forgotten or are they still being considered?

Mr. Gaitskell: This matter is still under consideration and I hope to be able to make a statement in two or three week's time.

Income Tax

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that coach and wagon drivers and others in Morecambe have, during the past two months, been re-coded under Pay-As-You-Earn with an additional assessment of £25 for tips; and under which of his regulations this has been done.

Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir. The Regulation is No. 7 (1) (b) of the Income Tax (Employments) Regulations, 1950 (S.I. 1950, No. 453).

Sir I. Fraser: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate how very much this practice is resented, and can he justify a flat rate which obviously must be unjust to many if it is just to any?

Mr. Gaitskell: I am afraid I cannot agree that enforcing the law for Income Tax on individuals is necessarily unfair.

Sir I. Fraser: How can a flat rate apply to many different emoluments, amounts and circumstances?

Mr. Gaitskell: It is open to the individuals concerned to appeal against the assessments.

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis the Gas Council is assessed for Income Tax and Super Tax; how much is due to the Treasury for the first year's working; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gaitskell: I cannot disclose information about the affairs of particular taxpayers, but the hon. Member is no doubt aware that the Gas Council is liable for Income Tax on exactly the same basis as a privately-owned concern carrying on the same activities.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the pay of Z Class reservists during their 15 days' training this summer is to be included in the recipient's Income Tax return to be completed after 5th April, 1952; and when tax will be payable on this income.

Mr. Gaitskell: This pay should be included in the recipient's return of income for the year 1951–52. In the case of reservists whose civilian pay is subject to deduction of tax under P.A.Y.E., the tax on training pay will normally be collected during the year 1953–54.

Mr. Houghton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is desirable to avoid this long timelag in taxing this small amount of pay which will be received by the Z Class reservists during their 15 days' training? When we reach the Finance Bill will he consider exempting this pay from Income Tax altogether?

Brigadier Medlicott: How does the Chancellor justify his attitude of meanness over a matter of a small amount like this with profligate expenditure on the Festival of Britain?

Mr. Gaitskell: This income is subject to tax according to the law.

Mr. Erroll: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether agreement to the extra-statutory concessions given in the 93rd Report of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Inland Revenue for the year ended 31st March, 1950, was obtained from all the Local Commissioners of Income Taxe.

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir.

Mr. Erroll: Are individual local commissioners free to refuse. to grant these extra-statutory concessions if they so wish?

Mr. Gaitskell: I should like to have notice of that. These extra-statutory concessions are of a general character and therefore fall outside the sphere of the commissioners.

Mr. Erroll: As these are quite specific, have the commissioners agreed to implement them in their own districts?

Mr. Gaitskell: It is very difficult to interfere with the freedom of commissioners in this matter.

Mr. Erroll: How can it be interfering with them when only their agreement is asked for?

Public Corporations (Loans)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total for the last three financial years of loans to nationalised industries, Government boards and local authorities.

Mr. Gaitskell: I would refer the hon. Member to the various accounts which are presented to Parliament annually, particularly the accounts in respect of


the public corporations, and to the annual reports of the Public Works Loans Board.

Mr. Bossom: Does not this mean that most of this money was provided by taxpayers, and in the case of local authorities does it not mean that the same people who pay their taxes will often have to pay rates to repay these loans?

Mr. Gaitskell: If the money is borrowed it may or may not come out of taxation—that all depends on circumstances. Obviously, the interest will have to come out of the rates.

Mr. Bossom: Will not a person who is both a ratepayer and a taxpayer have to pay the money twice?

Mr. Gaitskell: I do not think that that is the case, but I am not quite sure that I follow the hon. Member.

Miss Burton: Would it not be fair to compare these loans with subsidies given to private enterprise industry before the war—such as steel—which also came from the taxpayers?

Mr. Gaitskell: That is fair comment.

Stamp Duty (Evasion)

Miss Burton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the large-scale infringement of Stamp Duty incurred by firms not giving a properly stamped receipt as acknowledgment for the payment of £2 or more; and what action he proposes to take on the matter.

Mr. Gaitskell: Cases of failure to stamp receipts are brought from time to time to the notice of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and suitable action by way of warning, pecuniary penalty or legal proceedings is taken in each case. I have, however, no reason to suppose that the evasion of legal obligations in relation to receipt duty is widespread.

Miss Burton: Is my right hon. Friend, to whose notice I have brought several similar examples which were sent to me from constituents in Coventry, aware that only 14 days ago I went to a large London store to buy a wireless set and received a receipt which was not stamped, and would my right hon. Friend therefore bring this statement of the position to the attention of firms throughout the country?

Mr. Gaitskell: I shall certainly be glad to have followed up, any information which my hon. Friend puts before me.

Mr. Erroll: Is it not the case that cash transactions do not require stamped receipts?

Mr. Gaitskell: That is not the law.

Valuation Officers (Visits)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that rating valuation officers, in asserting their right of entry to houses under Section 60 of the Local Government Act, 1948, are saying, even in reply to occupants who have stated that they are at work elsewhere all day, that their own hours of duty are only from 9 a.m. to 5.30 p.m.; and whether he will give instructions for the valuation officers to make visits at hours convenient to the occupants.

Mr. Gaitskell: There is a standing instruction to valuation officers to meet every reasonable request as to the date and time of inspection of premises and to arrange a visit outside normal hours of duty if need be. I am making inquiries into the specific case about which the hon. Member has written to me.

Mr. Keeling: As the valuation officer made the statement in a letter which I sent the Minister two weeks ago, will the right hon. Gentleman forthwith administer the necessary correction to this valuation officer?

Mr. Gaitskell: I will write to the hon. Member as soon as I have the appropriate information.

Mr. Keeling: The right hon. Gentleman has it.

Kent County Council (Exchequer Payments)

Mr. Gerald Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sum is being paid to the Kent County Council out of Exchequer funds for the present financial year.

Mr. Gaitskell: Information about final Exchequer payments for the current year is not yet available.

Mr. Williams: Is the Chancellor aware that every pound that the Exchequer spends means that Kent County Council


have to spend a large sum of money, and that owing to Government extravagance their rates are being put up to an intolerable extent?

Mr. Gaitskell: That could equally be said the other way round: for every pound that the Kent County Council spend, the Government have to find an equivalent amount.

Non-residential Building

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent, bearing in mind the needs of the defence programme and of housing, he proposes to reduce non-residential building within the capital investment programme.

Mr. Gaitskell: The investment programme is being reviewed in the light of the requirements of the new defence programme, but I have at present nothing to add to what I said on this subject during the defence debate on 15th February.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: Will the Chancellor keep a very watchful eye upon his right hon. Friend the Minister of Works, who during 1950 granted licences to the value of nearly £4½ million for Government office building? Will my right hon. Friend also study carefully the answer to Question 38 on today's Order Paper?

Mr. Gaitskell: My right hon. Friend and I collaborate very well together in these matters.

Capital Expenditure Cuts

Captain Waterhouse: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now give details of the cuts made in capital expenditure which were to become operative in the latter part of 1950 and economies on Revenue account which the Prime Minister, in his speech in this House on 24th October, 1949, stated would have a disinflationary effect of£250 million a year.

Mr. Gaitskell: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my predecessor's speech on 26th October, 1949, and his Budget speech last year. Apart from changes announced then and subsequently, some expansion in the level of investment became possible as the economic situation improved. But I am satisfied that

the cuts by restricting demand at home played a valuable part in helping us to expand the level of our exports.

Captain Waterhouse: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the total of the economies to date?

Mr. Gaitskell: The economies announced were £240 million, both on investments and on current account.

Captain Waterhouse: Have these economies actually been made?

Mr. Gaitskell: No. Reductions were announced—for instance, the housing programme was restored, and the proposal to impose a charge of 1s. on prescriptions was dropped.

Mr. Watkinson: The Chancellor told me in answer to a Question a few weeks ago that his mind was not closed to reductions in national expenditure. Do I take it from his answer to that supplementary question that his mind is now closed to any further reduction?

Mr. Gaitskell: I am always open to consider suggestions.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Has the Chancellor noticed any disinflationary effect arising from any of his activities?

Mr. Gaitskell: Certainly. That played a considerable part in our favourable balance of payments last year.

Post-War Credits

Captain Ryder: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the event of a man dying before reaching 65 years of age, whether his regulations permit the postwar credits inherited by his widow to be made payable at such time as they would have been paid to her husband had he lived.

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir. In these circumstances, the post-war credit is payable to the widow when she reaches the age of 60.

Captain Ryder: Would it not be possible to make this much-needed concession? How much would it cost?

Mr. Gaitskell: The hon. and gallant Member will not expect me to anticipate my Budget statement.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Is the Chancellor aware that the inability to encash postwar credits is causing very great annoyance and aggravation to widows, who feel that they are being swindled?

Sir W. Smithers: If a private individual refused to pay his debts, he would find himself in the Old Bailey.

Sterling Balances

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the fact that His Majesty's Government have no intention of attempting unilaterally to scale down sterling balances held by the Egyptian Government, he will state the policy of His Majesty's Government in this connection in respect of each of the countries holding sterling balances, the total estimated volume and value of unrequited exports that will be needed to carry out this policy.

Mr. Gaitskell: His Majesty's Government have no intention of scaling down any of our obligations without the agreement of the other parties concerned. As regards the latter part of the Question, it is not our practice to divulge details of the sterling balances of individual countries and it is really quite impossible to attempt to estimate the volume and value of unrequited exports which would be saved if we embarked on a policy of unilateral repudiation.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: May I ask the Chancellor how he squares this announcement with his obligations under Article X of the Anglo-American Financial Agreement and also if he remembers what was said by the present Minister of Local Government and Planning on 6th May, 1947, when he referred to these sterling balances as "unreal, unjust and unsupportable and must be scaled down"?

Mr. Gaitskell: As far as the first part of the Question is concerned, the 1945 Agreement proposed that we should seek by agreement to scale down these balances. That we have done. As far as the second part of the supplementary question is concerned, I do not think that anything my right hon. Friend said on that occasion was in the least inconsistent with the decision unilaterally to scale down these allowances.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: If the right hon. Gentleman says there is nothing incompatible about it, how does he accept the words "unreal, unjust and unsupportable and must be scaled down"?

Mr. Gaitskell: It is our view that, of course, morally there is a very strong case for scaling down the balances, but that does not lead us to the conclusion that we have any legal right, or moral right. to repudiate them.

Mr. Churchill: Does it not weaken our moral position very much that in order to give these advantages in unrequited exports to Egypt, we have first to beg or borrow the money from the United States?

Mr. Gaitskell: I could think of few things which would be more damaging to the future credit of sterling than dishonouring a debt.

Anglo-Egyptian Financial Agreement

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what provisions are contained in the recent Anglo-Egyptian Financial Agreement with regard to the obligation of this country, under Article VII (4) of the Anglo-Egyptian Financial Agreement 1949, under which His Majesty's Government had to make releases from sterling balances to meet payments upon past due coupons or redeemed bonds of the Egyptian Public Debt, where such coupons or bonds are held by nationals of countries recently at war with His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Gaitskell: As I informed the House on 16th March, the formal agreement has not yet been concluded and a number of points, including the provision mentioned in the Question, are still under discussion. I would point out, however, that the main purpose of the provision was to enable the Government of Egypt to meet obligations to residents of former enemy-occupied countries and that in fact it has so far not been necessary to apply its provisions in respect of any resident in an ex-enemy country.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what provisions are contained in the recent


Anglo-Egyptian Financial Agreement to ensure that moneys released from sterling balances, particularly moneys convertible into dollars, are used only to buy essentials necessary to maintain and improve the standard of living of the Egyptian working man.

Mr. Gaitskell: None, Sir.

Official Motor Cars

Major Guy Lloyd: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury which Ministers, apart from Members of the Cabinet, have the use of an official car and driver; what was the average monthly mileage of these cars in each of the past five years; and what was the monthly average sum recovered for personal journeys, not on official business, during the same period.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): Since the answer is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following Ministers, other than Members of the Cabinet, have the use of an official car and driver:

First Lord of the Admiralty.
Secretary of State for War.
Secretary of State for Air.
Minister of Fuel and Power.
Minister of Transport.
Minister of Pensions.
Minister of Supply.
Minister of National Insurance.
Minister of Food.
Minister of Civil Aviation.
Minister of Health.
Postmaster-General.
Minister of Works.
Minister of State for Colonial Affairs
Minister of State.
Paymaster-General.
Attorney-General.
Lord Advocate.

The average monthly mileage of each of these cars was about 830 in 1949 and 800 in 1950. The average total monthly sum paid by these Ministers in respect of private journeys was about £18 in 1949 and £16 in 1950. Detailed figures for earlier years either are no longer available or could only be determined by a disproportionate use of labour.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Salaries (Taxes Service)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he proposes to reduce the pay of civil servants in tax offices outside London; what will be the extent of the deductions; and when will they take effect.

Mr. Gaitskell: A proposal has been made to apply to the taxes service the system of differentiation of pay as between London and other parts of the country which is in force in other branches of the Civil Service. It is still under discussion with staff representatives.

Sir J. Mellor: Will the Chancellor not agree that his proposals do, in fact, involve a reduction in pay for the persons mentioned in the Question, and why should their pay be reduced when the pay of everybody else and the cost of living are going up?

Mr. Gaitskell: I should prefer not to say anything more while this matter is under discussion, but there have, of course, been recent increases under arbitration awards.

Re-employed Clerks (Record Offices)

Mr. Howard Johnson: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that re-employed clerks with Army Record Offices are receiving basic wages of £4 16s. per week, irrespective of the fact that they may have had upwards of 10 years previous service; and whether he will now increase such basic wages to £6 per week, being the basic wages paid to new intake.

Mr. Jay: All temporary clerks are paid alike on engagement, save that those with previous Government Service may count that service for increment, if the gap between past and present service does not exceed three months. This rule has been agreed with the representative staff association and I see no reason for any change. £4 16s. (and not £6 as stated in the Question) is the maximum rate paid to male recruits without previous service.

Mr. Johnson: Can the Minister possibly defend re-employing a man who has had a break of three months and three weeks at the salary which is paid


to a novice, although that man may have had 10 years' experience in the Record Office prior to the three months' break in his service? Is it fair and just to do that?

Mr. Jay: These matters of wages and conditions of service are decided through the regular collective bargaining machinery and I do not think it would be right for me to express opinions on them here.

Reconstruction Competitions (Age Limits)

Mr. A. J. Irvine: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in regard to age-limits on entry for the open competitive examinations for appointment to the administrative class of the Civil Service, why deductions from actual age are permitted to men who have done National Service in the Forces but are not permitted to men who have done National Service in the mines.

Mr. Jay: All those whose education was interrupted by National Service of any form during the war and immediate post-war years were eligible to compete in the reconstruction competition. Deductions from age in respect of employment in the mines are not permitted in the current normal competitions because under the peace-time call-up arrangements such employment does not constitute National Service.

Mr. Irvine: Is there not an obvious injustice in this contrasted treatment between two forms of National Service? Will my hon. Friend look into it again with a view to correcting that injustice?

Mr. Jay: I have looked into this very carefully indeed. Of course, all these people had an opportunity at the proper time to compete, but this jrule was made several years ago and many thousands have been dealt with under it and it would be a greater injustice if we altered it now.

Public Relations Officers

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many persons are employed at the latest available date in public relations work of Ministries; and if he will give the amount of their salaries in convenient categories; and what is the total annual cost.

Mr. Jay: As the answer is rather detailed, I will with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir W. Smithers: Is not this public relations service of the Government purely a part of their propaganda machinery and a pure waste of money?

Mr. Jay: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that any modern organisation can carry on without a public relations staff, he is very out of date.

Mr. Snow: Would my hon. Friend add to that list the names of the trade associations which maintain public relations officers and will not these trade associations be very angry with their friends the Tories, who have been just a bit too clever?

Following is the answer:

The latest figures at present available are those of the provision in Estimates for 1950–51. These figures, which exclude the Central Office of Information, were as follows:


Staff Numbers 



Home Departments
834


Overseas Departments
2,368


Total
3,202

Salaries and Expenses 




£


Home Departments
518,150


Overseas Departments
1,556,850


Total
2,075,000

The details of the cost of these staffs are to be found in Cmd. 7949. Similar details relating to 1951–52 are due to be presented shortly in a White Paper.

Stamping Department (Salaries)

Mr. Houghton: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when the Treasury will authorise the Board of Inland Revenue to make an offer on the outstanding claims for women tellers, stampers, principal stampers, women superintendents, superintendents grades III, II and I and the deputy director of the Stamping Department.

Mr. Jay: As soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL OFFICE OF INFORMATION

Journalists

Mr. Baker White: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that on the occasion of a recent visit by the Minister of Supply to the North Midlands the Central Office of Information issued to editors an invitation stating that their representatives should arrive not later than 5.15 p.m. and be prepared to produce their National Union of Journalists membership cards, thus discriminating against the Institute of Journalists, to which many journalists belong; and if he will give instructions to the Central Office of Information to desist forthwith from operating a closed shop principle in favour of one trade union.

Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir. An apology and a written assurance to that effect were given to the Institute of Journalists on 16th January.

Mr. Baker White: Would it not be a good thing for the Central Office of Information to employ as a Press Officer someone who knows the set-up of the Press?

Mr. Jay: This was a mistake, made I think by a newly-recruited officer, and as soon as the matter was brought to my attention, I took steps to see that it would not happen again.

Inquiries

Mr. Baker White: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that on 15th March, the Central Office of Information, when asked for the title of the post held by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), first gave the wrong title and then said the information was confidential; and what steps he is taking to ensure that the Department becomes more efficient.

Mr. Jay: Perhaps there has been some misunderstanding. The Central Office has no record of any inquiry except for the official address of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), which it did not say was confidential. As to the second

part of the Question, I would remind the hon. Member that the Central Office provides services to other Departments: it is no part of its duties to deal with general inquiries, though it does its best to answer them as a matter of courtesy if it is asked.

Mr. Baker White: Is the Financial Secretary aware that when my secretary telephoned she was first informed that the right hon. Gentleman held the office of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and that, on reminding the official that he had gone somewhere else, she was transferred to the librarian who told her that he knew the information was confidential and that he could not disclose it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is now putting a detailed question which I understand was not admitted.

Mr. Baker White: She asked for the Public Relations Officer and was informed that he had gone out to tea.

Mr. Jay: I think that if the secretary of the hon. Gentleman had telephoned my right hon. Friend's own office in the first place, she would have been saved a lot of trouble.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Canadian Softwood

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what quantity of softwood, suitable for housing, he expects to be imported from Canada during 1951;
(2) what total quantity of softwood he expects to be imported from Canada during 1951.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. Bottomley): I cannot give an exact forecast, but I expect our total 1951 imports from Canada of softwood, including those suitable for housing, very considerably to exceed the pre-war average.

Colonel Hutchison: Can the hon. Gentleman differentiate, at any rate approximately, between the two types of softwood to be used for housing and for other purposes?

Mr. Bottomley: No, Sir, but I gather there will be no interference with softwood required for housing purposes.

Mr. Vane: Is it anticipated that we shall be able to purchase all the softwood from Canada that they are able to offer?

Mr. Bottomley: We are taking all the softwood from Canada that we require.

Plasterboard (Paper Liner)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the shortage of paper liner for plasterboard is holding up the housing programme of local authorities; and what steps are being taken to increase supplies.

Mr. Bottomley: I am aware that the plasterboard industry, in common with other industries using paper and board, are having difficulty with supplies of liner, but not to the extent of causing a serious interruption in the housing programme. The liner manufacturers are handicapped at present by the shortage of waste paper, supplies of which should improve shortly as a result of the national salvage campaign. Meanwhile they have been asked to maintain supplies of plasterboard liner at a level sufficient for the essential requirements of the housing programme.

Mr. Jeger: If I bring to my hon. Friend's attention any special cases in which housing programmes are being held up, will he take exceptional steps to see that they get supplies of plasterboard?

Mr. Bottomley: I will examine any case that is forwarded to me.

Anglo-Portuguese Talks

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper m the name of Wing Commander HULBERT:

85. To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the recent Anglo-Portuguese talks held in London.

Mr. Bottomley: I will, with your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, reply to Question 85.
The discussions related to the likely pattern of Anglo-Portuguese trade in the current year. Both Governments are anxious to secure that the trade in goods which have been traditional, including goods which are essential to our respective economies, should be maintained so

far as possible in spite of increasing difficulties presented by shortages, and there was a useful review of the whole position. A number of financial matters were also discussed including the form of a new monetary Agreement which will replace the current Agreement which expires next month.

Wing Commander Hulbert: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his reply will give great satisfaction to our oldest Ally?

TRADE DISPUTE, COVENTRY (UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT)

Mr. Edelman: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of National Insurance if she is aware that because of the strike of 350 vehicle workers at the Jaguar Car Company, Coventry, 300 workers who are not participating in the strike have been refused unemployment benefit in consequence of the provisions of Section 13 (1, a & b)of the National Insurance Act. 1946; and whether, pending the hearing of the appeals by those workers against the refusal to pay benefit, she will request the Chairman of the National Assistance Board to allow benefits to the men concerned equivalent to unemployment insurance benefit.

The Minister of National Insurance (Dr. Edith Summerskill): I am aware that there is such a trade dispute and that certain claims to unemployment benefit have been disallowed in consequence. I have, however, no power to do as my hon. Friend suggests, as the Board has to decide applications for assistance in accordance with the provisions of the National Assistance Act and the regulations made thereunder.

Mr. Edelman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these men are innocent victims of a strike in which they have no part at all? Is it not unjust that they should be denied benefit, and will my right hon. Friend endeavour to get them some measure of relief before Easter?

Dr. Summerskill: If my hon. Friend reads the relevant Section of the Act, he will find that the Act does not distinguish between those directly and indirectly involved in a trade dispute.

Mr. Edelman: Are these men not as much innocent victims as if their factory


had fallen down so that when they turned up for work there was no work for them? They have contributed nothing to this strike. Is it not unfair that they should be treated in this way?

Dr. Summerskill: My hon. Friend must realise that these Acts are being correctly interpreted, and the House would object to my administration and that of the National Assistance Board if that were not so. I can, however, reassure my hon. Friend. Yesterday a number of these men called at the Assistance Board offices and their claims were examined. A number were told that they had had wages fairly recently and that furthermore they would be entitled to Income Tax refunds; but that if there were others who felt that they had a strong claim they could remain behind and have their claim examined. As a consequence of that, a number were granted assistance for their families and the rest were told to return on Thursday for assistance, if necessary.

Miss Burton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that deputations from these trade unions came to see me in Coventry on Saturday; that there is widespread distress because of this position; and that the true test of any Act is that it should work under difficult conditions.

Mr. Nally: Is it not perfectly clear that. while appreciating everything my right hon. Friend has said, the incident to which attention has been drawn demonstrates the quite appalling anomaly which she must bend her energies to correcting at the earliest possible date?

Dr. Summerskill: I should also remind my hon. Friend that the National Union of Vehicle Workers, one of the unions catering for these men, is now paying strike pay.

MOTIONS TO ANNUL ORDERS (PROCEDURE)

Mr. Churchill: May I ask the Leader of the House what steps he proposes to take as a result of his intervention last night on the question of Prayers?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I hope that discussions on the most suitable way of dealing with the subject may commence through the usual channels.

Mr. Churchill: With great respect to the usual channels—that valuable institution—might I ask the right hon. Gentleman how it was that the usual channels were not informed beforehand of his intention to make a statement of that character late last night; and how it was that full information was given to all his supporters, including the Prime Minister and others, whereas the Conservative Party, and I believe the Liberal Party, were not at all informed that any statement of that kind was to be made? Having regard to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's statement was intended to be of a conciliatory or deprecatory character, surely it would have been better to extend the usual courtesies.

Mr. Ede: I am exceedingly anxious to extend the usual courtesies but I hope that I may also expect them. [Interruption.]The right hon. Gentleman himself certainly has never shown me anything other than courtesy and great kindness, and I frankly acknowledge it. But during the course of the discussions on the Prayers which have taken place during the past fortnight or so, the responsibility for the Prayers has not been accepted by those who sit beside the right hon. Gentleman on that Bench. May I say that none of my hon. Friends was informed of the course which I proposed to take? When I rose, the only people who knew the course I was to take were my colleagues in the Cabinet——

Mr. Churchill: Are they not the right hon. Gentleman's friends?

Mr. Ede: Not all friends are colleagues. May I say that I have yet to know that it is an expected courtesy from a hunted animal to inform the harriers of the course which he intends to take?

Mr. Churchill: I am all against cruelty to animals, whether we are talking of hares or rabbits. But may I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am not at all sure that ordinary discussion through the usual channels will deal with the matter of grave constitutional importance which he has raised. I think it would be better if the discussion took place between himself and me; or himself and some other colleague, and me and another colleague. I do not consider that this is a matter for settlement, as it were, through the two Whips' rooms, excellent and admirable as are their representatives on


both sides. But of course I should be quite ready to receive the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—my room is on the ground floor anyhow. If there is any point to be made of it we could, of course, meet on neutral ground—accompanied by seconds—to have a discussion on this matter. Certainly it would be very wrong that anybody on either side should refrain from or refuse fully to discuss these matters. Perhaps the point of how, and where and when such a discussion should take place might well be relegated to the usual channels; while the merits and the general decision must be done on a different—I must not say higher—but a different level from that.
But there seems to me to be one considerable obstacle to this discussion. It is the threat and the pressure involved in the action of the President of the Board of Trade in suspending price talks with trade organisations. He announced yesterday to the newspapers friendly to the party opposite, and late at night, hen the statement was being made here, to the rest of the Press—and this is a very serious matter—[Interruption.]—the attempt——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will confine himself to question and answer and not to matters of debate.

Mr. Churchill: I hope I shall get the reasonable fair play we expect on this side of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—I have no intention of withdrawing. Hon. Gentlemen really make a great mistake in thinking they can intimidate me. I know what my rights are. I have the greatest respect for the Chair—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and I believe that I shall be accorded the rights which anybody else in my position would have been accorded in former Parliaments. I ask, is not it an obstacle to the beginning of these talks—I quite agree I should put it in interrogative form—that a threat should be used of maltreating, contrary to the merits of their cases, the traders of many different classes in this country as a means of putting pressure on Members of the House of Commons to refuse them their Parliamentary rights and privileges long established by practice and custom of this House? And how does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile such a situation—I am asking

the question—with the proposal for friendly conversations—personally friendly and on general grounds I trust—which the right hon. Gentleman has come to us asking us to begin?

Mr. Ede: At the commencement of the somewhat lengthy question of the right hon. Gentleman I really thought we were getting on—and may I say I do not want to be particular as to whether our respective positions mean that he should come to me, or I should go to him. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to meet him, and a representative of the Liberal Party, with such other persons as he might choose to nominate to accompany him. I have no doubt such a meeting could be arranged.
With regard to the latter part of his observations, I will make inquiries as to exactly what has happened; for I am exceedingly anxious that this matter should be brought into the atmosphere that, in spite of all the difficulties, we managed to get last night, and until the latter part of the recent remarks of the right hon. Gentleman I had hoped—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—we had managed somewhat to strengthen. I can assure him that all my right hon. and hon. Friends are exceedingly anxious that there should be no curtailment of the legitimate rights of the House, and that we shall be able to secure agreement in such a way as will make, I hope, for the increased efficiency of public business in this particular sphere; and if there is anything that has occurred which has stood in the way, I shall see what can be done with regard to it.

Mr. Churchill: I feel great difficulty in these meetings beginning until the threat—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—of the President of the Board of Trade, as I said, to subject to great hardship large and important sections of manufacturers and others in the country, by denying them their rights and treating them severely, is withdrawn. I do not propose that we should enter into any conversations of a friendly character—[Interruption.]—I do not fear hon. Gentlemen opposite half as much as they fear their fellow countrymen. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we can have a withdrawal by the President of the Board of Trade as a prelude to this conversation——

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Ede: I have promised the right hon. Gentleman that I will have a conversation with my right hon. Friend, and I have no doubt that the result of that conversation may, without undue loss of dignity to either of us, be conveyed to him through the usual channels.

Mr. Churchill: This is really a serious matter. [Interruption.] Is not this really a serious matter, and would it not be a great disadvantage to the House if the possibilities of friendly personal contact came to an end? May I hope that I shall hear from the right hon. Gentleman in the course of the afternoon—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]—that I shall hear from him before he expects me to meet him, with or without companions? I hope I shall hear from him that the President of the Board of Trade has withdrawn his threat.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Kirkwood: We will not tolerate that here.

Mr. Ede: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman's present view is that it is a prerequisite to any conversations between us that the action taken by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade shall be brought to an end. May I say that I have already promised him that I will consult my right hon. Friend on the matter? I will inform the right hon. Gentleman of the result. I understand that if I have to say that it cannot be withdrawn, our earlier amicable exchanges have led to nothing. That, I think, would be exceedingly unfortunate.

Mr. Churchill: May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I could not have expected a more decent answer than the one he has given—nor did I. I shall await any further communication he has to make to me.

EASTER ACT (AMENDMENT)

Sir Richard Acland: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Easter Act, 1928.
I should like to ask the House to spend a short time in considering a little problem which has become topical in many British homes in the last few days and which is likely to become more so over the coming week-end. At present the date of Easter wanders between 22nd March and 25th April and, what is perhaps even more important, the date of Whitsun wanders correspondingly with it, between 10th May and 13th June.
Subject only to the question of the date at which it should be brought into force, there is already on the Statute Book the Easter Act, 1928, which, were it in force, would confine Easter within the dates of 9th April and 15th April and Whitsun within the dates 28th May to 3rd June. I hope that no hon. Member will feel obliged to re-argue the secular case which was debated, and I hope settled, 23 years ago. At that time there was shown to be an overwhelming weight of secular opinion in favour of making a change. Resolutions were quoted from the F.B.I., from every railway in Western Europe, from scholastic authorities, from every principal chamber of trade and commerce throughout the British Commonwealth and from many more.
Both Houses passed the Bill in 1928, not indeed without one or two contrary speeches, but without any Division, and the Bill then received the enthusiastic blessing of the right hon. Gentleman the father of the present hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), and of the late Lord Birkenhead in another place. The present Act, by subsection (2) of Clause 2 only comes into operation when His Majesty by Order in Council decides. The Order has to be confirmed by Resolution of both Houses, and it is declared that regard shall be had, very properly to any representation from religious denominations. I ask hon. Members to note that there has from the start been complete and absolute agreement on the point that nothing can be done in this matter which in any way would seriously offend any substantial religious denomination.
It was this Act which brought about the failure of the Motion introduced a few weeks ago in another place by Lord Merthyr. His Motion, had it become effective, would have required that the Act of 1928 should be put into force at once. This would have deprived the religious denominations of any opportunity of expressing their views. The Bill which I shall introduce, if given leave, has a much more moderate aim. It would so amend subsection (2) of Clause 2 of the Act of 1928 as to bring that Act into operation upon 31st December, 1952, or, of course, upon such earlier date as His Majesty by Order in Council might direct.
Even on that date, 31st December, 1952, no Easter would be affected until the Easter of 1954, because by Clause 1 of the principal Act no Easter is affected until the next calendar year but one after the year on which it comes into operation. The delay of almost three years can be tolerated the more happily because, by coincidence, it happens that in 1952 and 1953 the date of Easter will be either identical to, or only one week different from, what it would be if the Act of 1928 were now in force.
I must now try to describe to the House briefly the attitude of the religious denominations towards this Measure. Easter being primarily a religious festival, obviously their attitude is of paramount importance. I think it is true to say that most, if not quite all, of the free churches have already positively expressed a view in favour of the change. The Roman Catholic Church has declared in a Pontifical Message in 1924, that the proposed change does not give rise to any dogmatic or theological difficulty, but that church has not been able so far to give positive approval to the change. The Church of England—and this is most important—has no objection to make on its own behalf, but has given notice that it would not consent to the change unless all other major denominations were also in agreement.
I should like to try to describe what would be the practical consequences of passing the Bill which I ask leave to introduce. No religious denomination would be in any way coerced. But the onus of responsibility for taking positive action of some kind would be shifted. Today the onus of taking positive action rests upon those who would like to see Easter

and Whitsun more narrowly confined. They, whether private individuals or Government Ministers, are obliged to go about and try to persuade the religious denominations positively to express their approval, and this will be rather difficult to achieve. Were my Bill to become law, the position would be that the religious denominations would have a period of one and three quarter years during which, if they were so minded, they could put forward their objections towards this proposal.
But let this be observed. If any important religious denomination were to put forward an objection, then it would not stand alone, because already the Church of England has announced that it would refuse consent unless that denomination were agreed, and it is clearly sensible and far better to keep the present arrangement than to get into a situation in which the secular authorities and some denominations celebrated Easter on one day and others celebrated it on another day. If any denomination raised objections, supported as it would be by the Church of England, it is certain that, before the one and three quarters years had passed, the Bill now proposed would have to be repealed.
I must refer to one other point, which is in regard to the desirability of securing not only agreement amongst the important denominations in this country, but also agreement and simultaneous action by all the countries of the Western world. I hope that many, including, as I must frankly tell the House, the present Archbishop of Canterbury, will not feel that this condition need be insisted upon, and, if we must wait until we have agreement and simultaneous action by all countries, I think it would be hopeless. If, for a period, we find that Easter is celebrated on one day in Britain and on a different day in France, I do not anticipate that there would be any great inconvenience, because already another country with which we are closely knit by many ties—Scotland—frequently celebrates its public holidays on different days without any inconvenience. I therefore hope that the House will give me leave to introduce this Bill.

Mr. Arthur Colegate: I hope the House will not give leave to introduce this Bill. It is no use the hon. Member


for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) saying that we cannot consider action taken 22 years ago, because a great many actions taken during the last 20 years will need to be reconsidered, even though some of them have been embodied in Acts of Parliament.
My objection to this Bill is not a theological or religious one, or even a dogmatic one. I have an objection, as many others have, on very much simpler and more human grounds. The fact is that what we have to fight against in our modern civilisation is turning everybody into robots, especially the working class people, who have no opportunity to enjoy considerable leisure. We ought to prevent their being driven into a narrow and limited channel in which they have got to have Easter at the same time of the year.
The hon. Member who asked for leave to introduce the Bill has told us about the Chambers of Commerce and other bodies who were in favour of this more uniform system of having a fixed Easter and a fixed Whitsun. I quite agree with him that Whitsun is more important, in many ways, than Easter, but the hon. Gentleman never mentioned, for example, that any trade union had sent any resolutions in favour of it, and it stands to reason that people with limited leisure do not always want to go to see the country on the 10th or the 11th May. They are delighted to find that Whitsun sometimes falls at the beginning of May and sometimes at the beginning of June, and those people who love to spend their holidays in what is known as hiking, or of walking on the hills and moors want to see as

wide a variety in nature as they possibly can.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the 10th May has the same weather every year?

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: It always rains.

Mr. Colegate: The hon. and learned Gentleman may reflect that during the months in early summer there is a very considerable difference in the aspect of nature, even though the weather may vary. The fact is that we do want to leave as much variety in life as we possibly can, and I think that a movable Easter and Whitsun are not undesirable on any account.

Mr. Daines: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest, on the same line of argument, that we should have Christmas at midsummer?

Mr. Colegate: If the hon. Gentleman had been following my argument, he would have realised that some festivals, like Christmas, are fixed, and will remain fixed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because there is no objection to fixed festivals. This desire for a mechanical Easter and the fixing of public holidays at exactly the same time every year is one which I think we should be very-unwise to encourage, and I hope that this Bill will not be proceeded with.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12.

The House divided: Ayes, 279; Noes, 105.

Division No. 62.]
AYES
[4.8 p.m.


Adams, H. R.
Bowden, H. W.
Clunie, J.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Cocks, F. S.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Boyle, Sir Edward
Coldrick, W.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Collindridge, F


Arbuthnot, John
Braine, B. R.
Cook, T. F.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Brockway, A. F
Cooper, Geoffrey (Middlesbrough, W.)


Baldwin, A. E.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Cooper, John (Deptford)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)
Corbett, Lt.-Col. Uvedale (Ludlow)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Broughton, Dr. A D. D.
Cove, W. G.


Benn, Wedgwood
Brown, George (Belper)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S)


Benson, G.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Crossman, R. H. S.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Burden, Squadron Leader F. A
Daines, P.


Bing, G. H. C.
Burke, W. A.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Bishop, F. P.
Burton, Miss E.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)


Blenkinsop, A.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Blyton, W. R.
Callaghan, L. J.
Davies, Nigel (Epping)


Boardman, H
Carmichael, J.
de Chair, Somerset


Booth, A.
Channon, H.
de Freitas, G.


Boothby, R.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Deer, G.


Bottomley, A. G.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Diamond, J.




Dodds, N. N.
Langford-Holt, J
Robertson, J J (Berwick)


Donnelly, D
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Drayson, G B
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Robson-Brown, W.


Drewe, C.
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon John (W Bromwich)
Lindgren, G. S
Roper, Sir Harold


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Ropner, Col. L.


Edelman, M.
Llewellyn, D.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Longden, Fred (Small Heath)
Royle, C


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Ewart, R.
McAdden, S. J
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Fernyhough, E.
McAllister, G.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Field, Capt. W J
McGhee, H. G.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Finch, H. J.
McGovern, J.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Fisher, Nigel
McInnes, J.
Simmons, C. J.


Follick, M.
Mack, J. D.
Slater, J


Foot, M. M.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Smiles, Lt.-Col Sir Walter


Forman, J. C
McKibbin, A.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Fraser, Sir I (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
McLeavy, F
Sorensen, R W


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon H T N
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank


Gammans, L. D
Maitland, Cmdr J. W
Sparks, J. A


Ganley, Mrs. C S
Mallalieu, E L. (Brigg)
Steele, T


Gilzean, A.
Mallalieu, J P W (Huddersfield, E)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Gooch, E. G
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C
Manuel, A. C.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Grenfell, D R.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.
Studholme, H. G.


Grey, C. F
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith


Griffiths, Rt. Hon James (Llanelly)
Mellish, R. J.
Sylvester, G. O.


Griffiths, W D (Exchange)
Messer, F.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Grimond, J.
Mikardo, Ian
Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)


Gunter, R J.
Mitchison, G. R.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Moeran, E. W.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)
Monslow, W.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Moody, A. S.
Thomas, Iorworth (Rhondda, W.)


Hall, Rt. Hon Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Moore, Lt.-Col., Sir Thomas
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Hamilton, W W
Morley, R.
Thompson, Lt -Cmdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Hannan, W
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Hardman, D R
Mort, D. L.
Thurtle, Ernest


Hardy, E A.
Moyle, A.
Tilney, John


Hargreaves, A
Mulley, F. W.
Turton, R. H.


Hay, John
Murray, J. D.
Ungoed-Thomas, A. L


Hayman, F. H.
Nally, W
Usborne, H.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Tipton)
Neal Harold (Bolsover)
Vosper, D. F.


Herbison, Miss M.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Wade, D. W.


Hobson, C. R.
Oliver, G. H.
Watkins, T. E.


Holman, P.
Orbach, M.
Webbe, Sir Harold


Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. O.
Weitzman, D.


Houghton, D
Padley, W. E.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hoy, J.
Paget, R. T.
West, D. G.


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)
Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pannell, T. C.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Hurd, A. R
Parker, J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W


Hylton Foster, H. B.
Paton, J.
Wigg, G


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Wilkins, W A.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pearson, A.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)


Irvine W. J. (Wood Green)
Peart, T. F
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Poole, C.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Jay, D. P. T.
Popplewell, E.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Jeger, Dr Santo (St Panoras, S.)
Porter, G.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Jennings, R
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'lly)


Johnston. Doug'as (Paisley)
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, W T (Hammersmith, S.)


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Profumo, J. D.
Wills, G


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Pryde, D. J.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)
Raikes, H. V.
Winterboltom, Richard (Brightside)


Kaberry, D
Rankin, J.
Wise, F. J.


Keenan, W
Rees, Mrs. D.
Yates, V F.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Reeves, J.
Younger, Hon. K.


Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr. E.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)



Kinley, J.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Remnant, Hon P
Sir R. Ac and and


Lambert, Hon G
Rhodes, H.
Mr. Joynson-Hicks


Lang, Gordon
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)





NOES


Aitken, W T
Bromley-Davenport, Lt -Col. W
Conant, Maj. R. J. E


Alport, C. J M
Bullock Capt M
Cooper-Key, E. M


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H F C


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Butcher, H W.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E


Banks, Col. C.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Crouch, R. F.


Blackburn, A. R.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth. W)
Crowder, Capt. John (Finchley)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Clyde, J. L
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)


Braithwaite, Lt -Cmdr Gurney
Collick. P
Cundiff, F W







Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)


Delargy, H. J.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn Geoffrey (King's Norton)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Digby, S. W.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Donner, P. W
Logan, D. G.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Soames, Capt. C.


Duthie, W. S.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Fort, R.
MacColl, J. E.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Fraser, Hon Hugh (Stone)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Macdonald, A. J. F. (Roxburgh)
Sutcliffe, H.


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Teevan, T. L.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Thorneycroft, Peter (Monmouth)


Grimston, Robert (Westbury)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Thorp, Brig. R. A. F.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marples, A. E.
Timmons, J.


Harrison, J.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Turner, H. F. L.


Harvey, Air Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Maude, Angus (Ealing, S.)
Vernon, W. F.


Harvie-Watt, Sir G. S.
Mellor, Sir John
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nicholls, Harmar
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Mollis, M. C.
Nicholson, G.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.
Oakshott, H. D.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
O'Brien, T.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Hudson, W R. A. (Hull, N.)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Wood, Hon. R.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wyatt, W. L.


Keeling, E. H.
Redmayne, M.



Kenyon, C.
Robens, A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lancaster, Col. C. G
Scott, Donald
Mr. Arthur Colegate and Mr. York.


Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Richard Acland, Mr. Joynson-Hicks, Mr. Bing, Mr. Parker, Mr. Morley, Mr. John Foster and Sir Herbert Williams.

EASTER ACT (AMENDMENT) BILL

"to amend the Easter Act, 1928," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 3rd April, and to be printed. [Bill 85.]

Orders of the Day — RESERVE AND AUXILIARY FORCES (TRAINING) BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 2.—(PROCEDURE FOR CALLING UP UNDER s. 1.)

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 38, leave out from the second "that" to "for" in line 41, and insert:
either before the service of the notice under this section or within seven days after the service thereof, he had applied in the appropriate manner.

4.20 p.m.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Shinwell): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
As hon. Members are aware, it was suggested in the course of the Second Reading debate, and in particular on the Committee stage, that we should afford a measure of protection to those men who are included in the category of Class Z and Class G Reserve who would wish to apply for exemption on any ground whatever. We discovered that the warning notices sent out by the War Office and by the Air Ministry, having no legal sanction, would not afford a measure of protection and, moreover, there was some difference as between the warning notices sent out by the War Office and those sent out by the Air Ministry.
This Amendment, therefore, is designed to provide protection for those men by the passage of the Bill which affords legal sanction and gives them an opportunity, after they receive the actual training or call-up notice, to apply within seven days for exemption either on the ground of hardship or for some other valid reason within the limitation of the Bill.

Major Legge-Bourke: The House will appreciate why this has been done and it is obvious from what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has said in another place that it is desirable to avoid giving such facilities to these men that they can appeal literally a day before they do their training. I am sure that hon. Members will naturally desire to support this protection. I suggest, however, that seven days warning is a

little bit short. Postal arrangements being what they are, it is conceivable that it would take two days before the notice arrived. That leaves five days within which a man could appeal. He may be a traveller for a firm and away from the place where the notice arrives. Therefore, the notice is very short indeed.
I understand from discussions I have had that it is the intention that this notice of service should go out a very short time only before actual training begins. If that be the case, it is very important that we should make quite certain that the period within which an appeal can be made is sufficient. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that in Clause 2 (2) powers are given to a Service Authority to alter the date on which training is to begin. Therefore, it is conceivable that even after the original training notice has been sent out an alteration may then take place in that date and the man may be put to very great inconvenience.
In the warning notices that are being sent out there are three dates that can be chosen by the reservist and he is asked to make his first, second and third choice; but there is a footnote to say that there is no assurance that he will be given his second choice, let alone his first. Therefore, with this considerable uncertainty that will result however a man answers his warning notice, and with a possibility of the training notice being later amended, it seems to me that seven days is a very short time indeed for the man to have in which to appeal.
I humbly suggest to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman that I think he has powers already in the Bill, if he chooses to use them, to cover this particular point so that he avoids what this Lords Amendment is deliberately designed to avoid and, at the same time, is a little more fair to the man than the concession of this Amendment is likely to prove. Clause 5 (2) of the Bill says:
The Service Authority may make regulations …
as to various matters
… and otherwise for the purposes of this Part of this Act …
It would seem to me he could make regulations under that subsection to cover the point I am trying to put to him.


and it seems to me a fairer way in the long run to do it by that means than by limiting himself absolutely to seven days.

Mr. Shinwell: I can only speak again with the consent of the House, but I should like to say a few words in reply to the hon. and gallant Member. First of all, there is the warning notice and, presumably, if a man is anxious to appeal he would do so on the basis of the warning notice. That is his first opportunity. If he chooses to apply to the War Office or to the Air Ministry for exemption he would have an opportunity under the Bill itself.
I think the hon. and gallant Member is under a misapprehension. There is a minimum of 21 days after receipt of training notice before a man is due to appear in his unit. He will have the full seven days after receipt of training notice. In our judgment that is quite ample. The hon. and gallant Gentleman cited the case of commercial travellers. We appreciate they are often away but, as I understand, after being away five days of the week they turn up in their homes at the weekend. At least they are expected to do so, and if they failed to do so I presume their relatives would see that they were suitably informed.
We apprehend no difficulty in this matter. We have given it very careful consideration, but if we find that a man is not fully seized of the opportunity afforded under this Clause to enable him to appeal I am satisfied that the War Office or the Air Ministry, in their administration, will try to protect the interests of the man. I think I gave an assurance on the Committee stage that in all matters there would be humane administration and, therefore, I think the hon. and gallant Member can rest assured that nothing is likely to go wrong or to be detrimental to the interests of the man concerned.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Would these new words apply to those who claim exemption on conscientious grounds?

Mr. Shinwell: Yes.

Lords Amendment: in page 11, line 13, at end, insert:

New Clause A.—(LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.)

Proceedings for an offence under this Part of this Act may be taken against a person at any place at which he is for the time being.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The purpose of this new Clause is to ensure that if a man is prosecuted for failing to report he can be brought before a civil court as provided for in the Bill at a place near where he resides. Under the Bill as originally drafted, it would appear that a man might be summoned to appear in a court of summary jurisdiction many miles, and perhaps many hundreds of miles, from where he resides. It is in order to protect the interests of the man and at the same time the interests of the administration that we ask the House to accept this Clause.

Lords Amendment, in page 12, line 43, at end, insert:

New Clause B.—(POWER TO APPLY PRECEDING PROVISIONS TO OTHER RESERVE AND AUXILIARY LIABILITIES.)

(1) If it appears to His Majesty in Council expedient in all the circumstances so to do. His Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for applying, subject to such adaptations or modifications as may be specified in the Order, all or any of the enactments referred to in the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act in relation to such liabilities (howsoever arising and whether legally enforceable or not) of members of any of His Majesty's reserve or auxiliary forces, or of any description of such members, as may be so specified.

(2) An Order in Council under this section may contain such incidental and consequential provisions (including provisions for adapting or modifying any enactment or instrument having effect under an enactment) as may be specified in the Order.

(3) A draft of any Order in Council proposed to be made under this section shall be laid before Parliament, and the draft shall not be submitted to His Majesty except in pursuance of an address presented by each House of Parliament praying that the Order be made.

(4) Any Order in Council under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order in Council

(5) In this section the expression "His Majesty's reserve or auxiliary forces" means any reserve force of the Royal Navy or the Royal Marines, the Supplementary Reserve of Officers, the army reserve, the Territorial Army, the Royal Air Force Reserve of Officers. the


air force reserve, including the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve, and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force; and for the purposes of this section an officer of reserve to, or on the emergency list of, the Royal Navy or the Royal Marines shall be treated as a member of His Majesty's reserve or auxiliary forces.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words of explanation here. The House will recall that during our previous debates the question was raised by Members of the Opposition and, indeed, by hon. Members in all parts of the House, about the special position of volunteers in the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces. Attention was directed to the contrast between the protection afforded to them and to Class Z and Class G men. On that occasion my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State explained that we had consulted the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations. Some doubts were expressed whether there had been adequate consultation, and I can assure the House that there was full consultation with the representative authorities.
Obviously, it is impossible to consult every member of the Territorial Army or of the Royal Air Force Auxiliary Reserve, but there was, as far as I understand. full consultation. However, in another place it was suggested that we might have further consultation because it might be discovered that although at present the representative authorities in the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces were averse to accepting the proposal that was submitted to us by Members of the Opposition and by other hon. Members, they might in due course change their minds.
It was suggested, therefore, by a prominent member of the Opposition in another place that we might have recourse to Order in Council. I must say that we were a little surprised at this, because in the course of our debates the Opposition have strongly protested against the use of delegated legislation.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It was on a different point.

Mr. Shinwell: It may have been on a different point, but there is no difference in principle. We are very glad that we can agree about this matter, and when I heard of it I accepted it at once.
The position is this. If we should find as a result of further consultation or representations made to us by the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations after they themselves have had consultation with their people, that the volunteers desire to be afforded the same protection as is afforded in the Bill for other elements, then we shall give the matter very careful consideration. I cannot on behalf of the Government commit myself or the Government to accepting a proposition of that kind at the present time, but obviously if there was a very strong demand it would be impossible to resist it. Therefore, we have accepted this proposition.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: We on this side of the House are grateful to the Government for accepting and recommending this Amendment which has come to us. from another place. As the right hon. Gentleman reminded us, this question was reached at rather a late hour in the Committee stage. It was one of those nights on which the running was made from below the Gangway on the Government side, and, since we were anxious to proceed, there was not an opportunity for very exhaustive examination of the question. At the same time, it was urged, I think, not merely from the Opposition side but, as the right hon. Gentleman said, from other parts of the House, that it seemed on the face of it a strange and even anomalous situation that legal protection was given to National Service men and that it was thought right to do so by legislative act, and that the same protection was not given to the volunteer reservists.
However, we are glad that the Govern-men now take the powers to do this by affirmative resolution of both Houses, as I understand it, should it prove necessary and right to do so. Since this is the only one of the Amendments moved by us in the Committee stage which the Government did not accept, we are very glad now that they have gone almost halfway towards it, and have seen the importance of at least leaving themselves the opportunity to deal with this matter. We shall certainly give our support to this very fair and reasonable compromise in existing conditions.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: Those of us who are interested in preserving to the utmost possible extent the voluntary


character of the Territorial Army will, I believe, accept this Amendment as a reasonable compromise of the conflicting views which were expressed when this same point was discussed at an earlier stage. I myself am reluctant to impose by statute or by Order in Council any obligation upon employers who have been pretty good in the past, unless it is proved to be absolutely necessary. I take it that the same conditions that were put forward by the Under-Secretary of State for War at an earlier stage, namely, that there will be the fullest consultation with the Territorial Army Associations, both sides of industry and with other ranks of the Territorial Army, before effect is given to this Order in Council, still applies at present.
It will be for the Government to be completely satisfied by the widest possible consultations that it will be in the interests of the voluntary character of the Territorial Army to impose, if need be, this further statutory obligation upon employers. If those conditions still apply, and if we can be assured that the Government will not seek to introduce an Order in Council until it is made abundantly clear beyond a peradventure that this Order in Council is necessary, then I believe that most hon. Members will agree to this Amendment.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: As the mover of the Amendment which began this controversy, I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for having put forward this Amendment. I should like, however, to go one step further and ask him to make absolutely certain in his consultations with the properly constituted Council of the Territorial Associations that this Council has consulted all the constituent associations from which it is formed. I do not think that when the first consultation took place there had been consultation between the officials of the Council and all the associations, and that is what has gone wrong.
I think this has shown—and I think the Government have appreciated it—that there is great value in the interest that is taken on both sides of the House in the Territorial Army. Indeed, on one occasion in the middle of the night one of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends spoke in support of an

Amendment designed to give protection to volunteers, although because of the Whips he had to vote against it a few minutes later. The interest which has been taken in this House and in another place has resulted in the Government having second thoughts on this matter.
I have heard it said that there is a feeling in official channels concerned with the Territorial Army that it has been wrong for all this fuss to have been created outside the proper channels. I would say that it is not wrong. It is quite right, and the result that has been achieved is proof that it is quite right. I hope that when there has been time to take proper consultation with the proper authorities the Government will come to the House with an Order in Council for an affirmative resolution which will give the right answer for all concerned.

Mr. Shinwell: If I may have the leave of the House I should like to say a few words in reply to both my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) and the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low.) We have the highest appreciation of the services rendered by the men in the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces and we are anxious to afford them the utmost measure of protection. But I beg hon. Members also to understand that we entered into the kind of consultations which might be expected. We naturally consulted the representative body.
It is, of course, true that they have their constituent bodies, and apparently they did not think it necessary to consult all those bodies with whom they are associated. We have now reason to believe, however, that every possible step will be taken to ascertain the views of as large a body of men as is possible. When we have obtained those views, through the organisations, we shall be able to make up our minds. I can give my hon. and gallant Friend this assurance—we shall not take action until we are satisfied that such action will be in the best interests of the men and will have their full consent.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Remaining Lords Amendment agreed to. [Special Entry.]

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. William Whiteley.]

EGYPT (STERLING BALANCES AGREEMENT)

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Eden: For reasons of which nobody has cause to complain, the period allotted for this debate has been very much shortened, and as I understand there are a number of hon. Members who wish to speak this afternoon, I shall put my points as briefly as I can. I had hoped earlier that some of the cause for this debate would have vanished, because as I was coming to the House I spent a penny on an evening paper and I saw a report from Cairo which indicated that at any rate there has been some modification—it was not clear how much—of the restrictions on shipping through the Canal. I gather that the Government have as yet no confirmation of that, however, and it may be that if we administer a little further pressure this afternoon we shall be encouraging the development we all want to see. At any rate, I propose to maintain my pressure unmodified by what is so far, unhappily, only a rumour.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer on Friday gave us his fuller account of the Government's motives and reasons for the actions they have taken and I studied at the week-end what he had told us in the hope that I would find some comfort in it. I must confess, however, that the more I probe this business the more anxious I become as to the position in which this House and the country will find itself as a result of this agreement. I can only hope that the fears I shall express will be dispelled, but at the moment I feel that the agreement as we know it is not one which the House should be asked to accept.
The Chancellor and the Financial Secretary set much store by the fact that this agreement was, as they said, purely financial and had no political implications. But as far as I understand its

terms, this agreement grants to the Egyptian Government very important concessions. I know that that was not the view which the Government took when their representatives spoke to us at the week-end but, on the other hand, we have had the view of the Treasury representative in Cairo who is, after all, their spokesman and negotiator—because I understand that the Treasury negotiate all these things nowadays, although the Foreign Office may have a look in now and again. Mr. Waight, the right hon. Gentleman's representative in Cairo, who has been carrying on these negotiations, does not seem to agree in all respects with the Ministers he represents. At any rate, he spoke of this agreement as one in which valuable concessions have been made to the Egyptian Government. That is exactly how it occurred to me and that is exactly what I am complaining about in this present context.
Let me tell the House why I regard the concessions as valuable. If the Government admit that those concessions are valuable, then I do not consider that this is the moment at which we should make such concessions to Egypt unless the Egyptian Government modify the manner in which they have treated British interests in the last year or two. The truth is, however much the right hon. Gentleman may quite properly want to do so, that an important financial arrangement like this cannot be divorced from the general political relations between the two countries.
For instance, in his original statement the Financial Secretary said that action was to be taken by us under this agreement to facilitate the supply of petroleum products for Egypt. I shall say a word about that in a moment. But presumably an action of that kind is of real value to the Egyptian Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself told us that if we had not retained that concession to the Egyptians in the agreement he could not have hoped to secure anything like so satisfactory an agreement, so that it is of value to the Egyptian Government—and it has nothing to do with finance. It has a wider political implication.
I am not at all moved by the argument that we have given the Egyptian Government assistance in respect of oil in the earlier arrangements we have made about


sterling payments because, if that is the case, I do not think we should have done so. This situation has continued for more than a year and now at least is the time, in my judgment, when we should say, "No more concessions in this sphere until our rights, accepted and agreed under treaty, are safeguarded and treated with respect by the Egyptian Government." I want to say a word about the financial aspects and as I am not such an expert as my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) I shall tread as delicately as I can, but I have tried to master this difficult aspect of the problem.
I think this Egyptian scheme ought to be studied against the background of the release of sterling balances generally. Here we get into a pretty dangerous position, as I do not think the Chancellor would deny, ft is not easy to compare the strain which this new arrangement is going to place on our economy with that of the temporary arrangement which was enforced before. It may be—I think it will be—that over a short period—of a year, say—the new arrangements will impose a heavier burden than the previous temporary arrangement; over. a longer period it may be less. But what it is important that the House should recall is that the temporary arrangements were only interim arrangements; now we have to deal with a long-term settlement, and a long-term settlement against a very different background from that against which the interim arrangements were previously made.
We have been told by the Chancellor, quite rightly, that £300 million has got to be added to our bill—I think that that was the figure—for imports because of a further deterioration of the terms of trade against us during this year. We are ourselves short of raw materials for our rearmament programme, and can much less well afford unrequited exports today than at any time since 1945. I am bound to say that I should have thought that it would have been reasonable to ask the Egyptian Government to understand that aspect of the problem, when it is a fact that this re-armament, in which we are all engaged, must be of assistance to Egypt herself in the long run, as well as to us. It is not a great deal to ask of her that she should see that aspect of the problem, and see it as her contribution to these arrangements for world peace.
Let me mention briefly other aspects of this question. Of course, under the Colombo Agreement we have got to release—I think these figures are right—£246 million of sterling balances spread over six years—that is to say, about £44 million a year; but that release is spread evenly over six years. If the agreement with Pakistan is what I estimate it to be—I may be wrong about this, of course, but if it is—we shall be releasing something like £50 million this year, 1951 to 1952, and something like £40 million a year afterwards. The House will note that it is in this coming year that the biggest releases take place, when we are launching our re-armament programme. Then there is £7 million for Israel for two years, and with the present agreement with Egypt herself the heaviest payment is in this first year.
Therefore, I estimate that we are thus carrying a burden in 1951 to 1952 of £80 million of unrequited exports. That is a very heavy figure indeed. I ought to mention, in passing, that, over and above that, of course, there is the European Payments Union where, I understand, we are extending credits for about £30 million—for that alone; and, no doubt, there will be other credits due there. What they amount to no one can tell at this moment. For all these reasons it seems to me that we are piling up payments under these heads altogether in this first year, which is a dangerous thing to do in present conditions.
That would not be quite so bad if this arrangement now covered all of our engagements with Egypt, but I am not sure that it does that. There are, I think, about £80 million of sterling balances which are not covered by this agreement at all. What about them? Is there any understanding between the Government and the Egyptian Government that these other £80 million will not be demanded—or part of them demanded—by the Egyptian Government until the present agreement, at any rate, has expired, or very nearly expired? Can the Chancellor reassure us about that?
I do not want to labour this financial issue, but it does seem to me that the financial editor of "The Manchester Guardian" in some observations he made last Friday was pretty near the mark when he described the Government's action as "quixotic conduct." If we


want to extend quixotic conduct, then I must say that there are other countries to which I should be much more ready to direct it at the present time than Egypt, who is treating us in so unfriendly a manner.
I am sorry to see that a Bill has now just gone through the Egyptian Parliament which will result in converting the National Bank of Egypt, a very well-known and, indeed, famous institution, into a purely Egyptian central bank. I am sorry about that, and I am sorry that Sir Frederick Leith-Ross, a very distinguished public servant, should not be continuing with the bank—though that may not be attributable to that decision. But anyway, he is a loss to that bank. In Egypt this is being held, as the right hon. Gentleman must know, as severing the link with sterling. That is what the Egyptians are saying. As the bulk of Egypt's foreign trade is likely to remain with sterling countries, I cannot help thinking that the Egyptians may be making a mistake from their own point of view in severing a link with the sterling area.
I leave the financial side of the matter, and for a few moments I should like to turn to other aspects, and, more particularly, the facility the Government have promised Egypt in respect of her oil requirements. Now, the Financial Secretary told us:
His Majesty's Government will undertake to facilitate the supply of petroleum products to Egypt against payment in sterling up to a total value of £11 million per annum in each of the 10 years from 1951–60."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 1781.]
Now, the Government have always maintained—and, I think, rightly maintained—that there is some dollar content in all oil purchases by British controlled companies, and they will not, I imagine, dispute that there is, therefore, some dollar content in this concession. I do not know how much. Of course, it may be that, in addition to the provision of oil by British companies, some of this oil may have to be supplied by American companies, in which the dollar content would presumably be larger. On this we should like to be informed. If the assumption I have just made is correct, Egypt is, in fact, obtaining a material advantage. There are arrangements made to enable her to obtain her imports of oil from sterling. That is an advantage, and, in

this respect, I agree with the negotiator in Cairo, the Treasury representative, that these are valuable concessions.
My contention is that it is unjustifiable to make concessions of any kind to Egypt in respect of the supply of oil while she continues to make the most serious difficulties for us in that very sphere. And not only for us. Mark the effect of this on the State of Israel, which is now having a very difficult time indeed, economically, especially in respect of the question of foreign exchange, while only a quarter of the Haifa refineries can operate, whereas if they could operate at their full capacity the manifest gain to Israel need not be stressed.
What is happening is that Egypt is saying, "Help me to obtain oil by payments of sterling." But that does not justify us, because Egypt asks for that, in turning a blind eye to the fact that she herself is interfering with our supplies of refined petroleum products. Let the House consider what is happening. Because of the Egyptian ban on our tankers through the Canal, the refinery of Haifa, which is, of course, British owned, is working at only from 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. of capacity, and that very small percentage is only just enough to supply the immediate requirements of the State of Israel herself. To make sure even of this, the tankers that carry the crude petroleum have got to take it either through the Persian Gulf, all the way round Africa, and through the Mediterranean to Haifa, or all the way from the Caribbean. It adds additional costs in freights, and charges of all kinds. How can that be defended by anybody? It is an absolutely fantastic situation, especially at this time when there is a world tanker shortage, and when there is a strong demand for refined oil products. The whole of this extra effort, the whole of this extra expense, is imposed upon us by the action of the Egyptian Government, which we hold to be contrary to the terms of the Suez Canal Convention.
What is the value of this? What are we losing? Let the House look at that for a moment. I mean, the value in money. I believe that the capacity of the Haifa refinery is about 4,000,000 tons a year of refined oil. At the moment it is turning out, as a result of the crude oil having to be brought a long distance,


about a quarter of that—perhaps 1,000,000 tons. So three million tons of the capacity of Haifa is today idle, and it has been idle for nearly two years. Now, I suggest that the value of this lost output is not less than £20 million a year. That is a very considerable sum; and that is what the Egyptian Government are costing us and others by their unjustifiable action, which, I admit, the Government themselves have condemned. I endorse every word the Chancellor himself said in condemnation of this action, but what I cannot understand is why, if they condemn that action to that extent, they should at the same time grant special facilities in the very commodity in respect of which Egypt is treating us so very badly.
If it is important—and no doubt it is important—for Egypt to obtain her oil under privileged financial arrangements made with this country, I should have thought it was also desirable to ask that Egypt herself should, in return, desist from inflicting serious injury on British interests, and I should like that insisted upon before this arrangement comes into force.
The right hon. Gentleman told us—and in this again he was right—that the issue of the ships going through the Canal was before U.N.O. That is quite true, but it really is not relevant to our discussion here. Because U.N.O. is discussing this matter—and I am glad that it is—that is no reason why we should not try to get a settlement ourselves with the Egyptian Government; it is no reason why, meanwhile, we should ignore what is going on and not ourselves take steps to make the Egyptian Government understand that we are not prepared to condone conduct of this kind.
Finally, I should like to put this point to the House. The right hon. Gentleman said—and I do not think I am paraphrasing his remarks unfairly—that if he had not given this concession about oil we should not have got anything like so satisfactory an agreement, and he appeared to think that that was conclusive. But is it? If a country is not observing its obligations it is not usually wise to enter into some arrangement with it as if those obligations were being carried out. We have had issues of that kind before.
At this moment Egypt is admittedly—1 do not think anybody on the Government Front Bench would deny it—breaking certain definite engagements which she has with this country. I, myself, would feel very reluctant to enter into any new arrangements which admittedly advantaged a Government which is not fulfilling its fair undertakings to us. Of course, if these arrangements—and this I give to the Government—were part of a wider agreement which resulted in the satisfactory settlement of a number of our differences with Egypt the position would be completely different, and I should not now be standing here making this complaint.
But on the information we now have I cannot escape the conclusion that, in the words of the Treasury representative in Cairo, we have made valuable concessions to the Egyptian Government while they continue to treat legitimate British interests unjustly, and I do not believe that that is the best way to get good results in the political field later on. I think we would have done better to insist, politely but firmly, that any concessions in respect of oil would be granted only in return for full freedom for our tankers to ply their lawful trade through the Canal.
All these Egyptian questions are admittedly of great significance at the present time. Is it the Government's argument that these concessions have been made in order to try to create a better atmosphere for the political talks? If that is so, they cannot at the same time pretend that these decisions have no political significance. It is one or the other. The picture has to be looked at as a whole. None of us denies that. But what the Government seem to be doing is to be making concessions on one part of the front before they have dealt with the other at all, and I do not believe that to be good diplomacy. I repeat, I believe that this agreement enshrines a mistaken policy, and I hope the House will not endorse it unless and until we have had further and more satisfactory assurances of Egypt's conduct towards us than the Government have given us up to this time.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Paget: I found myself in a good deal of sympathy with much of what was said by the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). In a recent broadcast the


right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) paid tribute to my right hon. Friend the former Foreign Secretary, who, he said, would be regarded as one of the great Foreign Secretaries of this country. I believe that to be true. I believe that the contribution to the Atlantic world which he made has been a great achievement. On the other hand, one must also recognise that it was a foreign policy which contained its failures, and surely this Middle Eastern situation is one of those failures.
We have failed to pursue the sort of policy which gains us respect in the Middle East. The sort of policy which gains us respect in the Middle East is not a policy of giving way; it is not even a policy of conciliatoriness. The Arab States admire, and throughout their history have admired, power and strength, and it is that which our policy seems to have lacked. In Persia we are now getting the repercussions of that policy.
By what I always regarded as a mistaken policy with regard to Israel, we have in some degree taught the Middle Eastern States that the way to get concessions from the British is to twist the tail of the British lion. I feel that that must now stop. I hope that there will be a clear change in our Middle Eastern foreign policy now. It is quite impossible to separate this financial arrangement from the general foreign policy picture of the Middle East, and I am very glad to see on the Government Front Bench a representative of the Foreign Office taking notes, because I believe that this debate is even more its affair than that of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Surely it is time to say to the Egyptians, very firmly indeed, "Your quarrel with Israel must come to an end. It is Britain's policy that there should be a firm and coherent Middle East, a Middle East capable of standing up for itself. It can no longer be disrupted by this artificial squabble you are maintaining for internal political purposes. That sort of nonsense has got to stop. Part of that nonsense is interfering with our ships on their lawful occasions in the Suez Canal, and that has got to stop, too. We are not going to provide you with petrol when you seek to interfere with our ships on the sea."
Frankly, I should like to see our Navy given instructions to see that our ships

are not interfered with on the sea. I do not think that that would injure our relations with Egypt. I think that it would have the opposite effect, because I am convinced that a strong and resolute gesture is the one way to get on with all Middle Eastern Powers. We have had a change of office at the Foreign Office, and I very much hope that that will also signify a change of policy in these respects.

5.9 p.m.

Lord Dunglass: I am very glad to follow the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) in this debate. I am sure he will have noticed the approval with which his remarks were greeted on this side of the House. If we could feel that he had among his hon. Friends the same support for his policy of a strong line in the Middle East——

Mr. Grossman: We supported that long before hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Lord Dunglass: —as for his proposal that our Government should take a strong line with Egypt, it would be a very good thing indeed.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), I have read and listened- to the Chancellor's statements. The argument on which he seems to base his support of the Measure—his first argument—is that it is wrong to introduce political factors into a purely financial agreement. He can scarcely have consulted the precedents. There can hardly have been any post-war settlement in which politics and finance were not inextricably interwoven. He need look no further afield than the agreement which covers the transit through the Suez Canal, because if there was an agreement which is part political and part strategic, part economic and part financial it is that.
Nor, I think, is the right hon. Gentleman himself consistent. We have only to look at the Argentine meat talks to see that the talks, which were started on the narrowest basis, can, when political expediency enters into them, be widened, and widened, on his own authority, to take into account all matters at issue between the two countries. I would therefore suggest to the Chancellor of the


Exchequer that the general argument that we cannot introduce political factors into a financial agreement falls down.
The next claim which the right hon. Gentleman puts forward, if I understand him aright, is that these sterling balances are Egyptian property, and he mentioned the effect of repudiation. I am bound to say to him straight away that I have never heard any mention of repudiation by any hon. Member on this side; we have mentioned modification and mentioned the altering of the timing of such an agreement as he is making, but there has been no suggestion of repudiation. But he does know, I think, that we on these benches have often said that we would put forward counter-claims because we consider that there are substantial and legitimate counter-claims which can be put forward. This caveat has often been urged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). Apart from that, where our real quarrel lies with the right hon. Gentleman is that he seems to hold the view that Great Britain should fulfil all the obligations of a good neighbour while Egypt is free to flout both the spirit and the letter of her engagements.
The Chancellor protests, and we know that his protests are sincere; we know him well enough for that. But, at the same time, he gives away the greatest bargaining factor which he has under his own hand. When ordinary men and women of this country who look at these matters see how Egypt is behaving, I think that they regard it in this light: they know that our troops saved Egypt in the war, and they have seen, since 1945, Egypt carrying on an agitation for the evacuation of our troops from Egypt before the time of the Treaty expires. They have seen Egypt doing everything possible to embarrass our administration in the Sudan. They now see Egypt adding injury to insult by her blockade of our ships in the Suez Canal. They cannot understand why we should go out of our way to make an advance concession to Egypt. As my right hon. Friend said, this blockade has meant something like £20 million sterling a year loss to us, and they cannot understand why we should go out of our way to make an advance concession to people who are out to do us grave economic and financial harm.
The Chancellor shows great concern for our credit. I, like the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, would suggest this to him. He would see how steeply our credit would rise if His Majesty's Government would take some action which would show Powers that behave in the way Egypt is behaving that they cannot twist our tail with impunity. It may be, as the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington has said, that there is a good deal in this agreement which is good, but my submission to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is this: it is absolutely ill-timed and there is no excuse for going on with it now before the United Nations have inquired into the question of the blockade of the Suez Canal, and before we have entered on some general and wider talks in which we can safeguard our wider interests.
The right hon. Gentleman's excuses have been very thin. I cannot help thinking that there is a much simpler explanation for this action which they have carried out. I believe that it is a mistake. Government Departments have shown a complete lack of co-ordination in this country over the last few years, and if the Government have had a fault it is that, in a world which is charged with high tension politics, they have time and again missed the political significance of events. They did it at the beginning of the Schuman Plan. They missed the chance to influence that plan. Undoubtedly, they missed the political significance of the affair of the American admiral.
The other day, answers to Questions showed that the Treasury had taken a decision to cut the allowance which we had been going to pay for propaganda in Eastern Europe. Surely that decision could never have been taken if the Foreign Office had been consulted. Now there is this. I beg the Chancellor not to carry on with this agreement until the United Nations have pronounced on the matter of the blockade and to make this agreement a part of one which will safeguard the wider interests of this country.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Reid: I will try to be brief, and I cannot undertake to follow on the lines of the hon. Member for Lanark (Lord Dunglass) because I profoundly disagree with him about the Schuman Plan, for instance for the


document which came out with the Schuman Plan—and I well remember reading it—we were asked to pledge ourselves, blindfolded, in advance.

Mr. Boothby: No.

Mr. Reid: Yes. We were asked to accept in advance, the terms of the Schuman Plan and we were to be pledged. also, to federate. The Schuman Plan was only a stepping-stone to European Federation.

Mr. Maclay: Will the hon. Gentleman, before he uses that argument again in this House or anywhere else in the country, please turn up the White Paper produced by His Majesty's Government and look at the tenth Note exchanged between the French Government and the British Government? Will he not speak about this again until he has done so?

Mr. Reid: I repeat what I have just stated. It was in the White Paper, setting out the plan, that all was with a view to federation.
With regard to the question of the American admiral. it is unfortunate that some of the facts leaked out in Denmark before all the facts were known. I do not agree at all that we and our technical advisers, the Chiefs of Staff, have been wrong about the case of the admiral, but that will come up later.
To turn to Egypt, the first thing I notice, and notice with regret, is that we are debtors, that we owe £234 million to Egypt. We have to pay that money unless, by mutual agreement, and not by unilateral action, Egypt agrees to reduce the sum at some time or other.

Mr. Boothby: Is the hon. Member suggesting that Egypt owes us nothing?

Mr. Reid: They owe their safety and security to us, but in the matter of finance we owe them £234 million. There is no getting away from that. We are bound to repay this money, money which, I agree, was accumulated during the war in the noble task which we and our Allies performed in saving Egypt and the world. It is a sad state of affairs that we now have to pay the debt we incurred in saving Egypt, among the rest, but it is a debt we legally owe.
We have now made an arrangement by which we pay back in 10 to 13 years £150 million, and we are paying it back at a smaller annual rate than in years gone by, which is something gained. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) has recalled the other unfortunate debts that we have to pay to other sterling balance countries, and I think he arrived at the conclusion that on next year agreements we have to pay about £80 million, which is a very serious matter. Again, we are debtors, and these arrangements were made during the war with countries such as India, Ceylon, Egypt and the rest. Whether they were wise agreements or not I cannot say, but they were made and we have to honour our agreements.

Mr. Churchill: They were always subject to our right to put in our counter-claims.

Mr. Reid: I agree, but we cannot put in counter-claims unilaterally. [Laughter.] I should say that we cannot insist on counter-claims unilaterally. We can put in a claim and perhaps get the other side to agree, and I hope that that will be done in the case of this Egyptian loan.

Mr. Churchill: What is the good of putting in a counter-claim if the other side can say, "Away with your counterclaim" and there is nothing else to be done?

Mr. Reid: It does not follow that we sit down and say that there is nothing else to be done. There is £150 million disposed of under this present arrangement, with £80 million to follow. I sincerely hope that we shall ask and get Egypt to scale down this enormous debt.

Mr. Boothby: It depends on the Government.

Mr. Reid: It depends to some extent on the Government, but to a greater extent on Egypt.
I have some knowledge of the Middle East and of Egypt. I consider it one of the key spots, strategically, in the whole world, which at the present time is in an appalling state of weakness. The countries in the Middle East are being preserved from being overrun only by the Atlantic Pact countries. But for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation these countries would have been overrun long


ago. There is, therefore, need for unity in the Middle East, and there is need for them to give us in the West some assistance, moral and otherwise—material, too—to protect themselves and the world from the onrush of Communist imperialism.
In the case of Egypt, I would wish, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington has said, that this financial agreement was part of a general settlement. I wish it were; but is it, or is it not? We have to make some arrangements for the coming years. Is this the beginning of a general settlement? If it is, then it is a far more valuable agreement.

Mr. Crossman: Surely my hon. Friend does not wish to embarrass his own Front Bench in trying to defend this agreement on the grounds that it is good politics?

Mr. Reid: Finance agreements are not political agreements, and this agreement as it stands alone is certainly not a political agreement; but is it part of negotiations to effect a general settlement?
I say to my Egyptian friends that it is high time that these things were settled. It is no use carrying on with the blockade of the Canal, which is a loss to everyone concerned. It is imperative for Egypt to come to a settlement with Britain in the first place. If Egypt were wise, she would settle all these things and let the financial agreement be the beginning of the all-round settlement that is necessary for us all. There is the question of the troops in the Canal Zone. I hope that now the financial side is settled for the time being something will be settled about our troops in the Canal Zone. These troops, as every Egyptian knows, were sent there for the safety of the Canal. I hope that this financial settlement will also lead to a settlement of the question of troops in the Canal Zone and the prolonged Sudan question.
I appeal to the Egyptian people and to their Government. having made this good start on a financial settlement, to proceed to settle the rest in their own interests and in the interests of the world.

Mr. Janner: In the course of the very generous and novel point of view that has been put forward

by my hon. Friend about a general settlement, is he also suggesting that it would be a good thing for Egypt to have a settlement with Israel?

Mr. Reid: I said that I wanted all the countries in the Middle East to unite, which would, of course, include Israel among the rest. It is time that they settled their squabbles, because Communist imperialism is on their borders.

5.28 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: My right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) drew attention, quite rightly, to the fact that if certain concessions had been obtained from Egypt, then this financial agreement might have been acceptable. But it is equally true to say that the terms of this agreement should only be accepted if they do not set a very bad precedent for all the rest of the sterling balances the Government will have to discuss in the near future.
I have never understood how the Chancellor has been able to adopt the attitude that these are legal debts, or, as the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) has said, that "We are bound to pay" or "We legally owe." Let me remind the House that these debts were incurred during the course of war, but that there was never at any time an undertaking given that they would be paid in full—in fact. the reverse is true.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gaitskell): Does the hon. and gallant Member expect that in every case when a person borrows money, it is necessary to point out that he has to repay in full?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: In this case it was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) during the war that at the end of the war counter-claims would be put in for the services rendered to the country.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the hon. and gallant Member say on what occasion the right hon. Gentleman ever made this claim in public during the war in respect of these countries from whom we were borrowing?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I cannot say if the right hon. Gentleman says "during the war," but I can give him the


date when he made that statement, which was never challenged, subsequent to the war.

Mr. Gaitskell: Does the hon. and gallant Member not see the importance of telling the people from whom one is borrowing money at the time and not after?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The right hon. Gentleman will not catch me out with sophistry. My right hon. Friend made it clear after the war that these sterling balances were considered during the war to be subject to counter-claims.

Mr. Gaitskell: When?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: He made that statement after the war, and it has never been challenged by any hon. Member opposite until today. That is the complete answer. I fail to see why the right hon. Gentleman should challenge it now unless he has some information to the contrary.

Mr. Gaitskell: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the right hon. Gentleman said in public during the war when these steps were incurred that he told the countries concerned that he would put in counter claims. So far as I am aware he never said any such thing.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to misrepresent what I said. What my right hon. Friend said was that these sums, due by way of sterling balances, will be subject to counter claims, and according to his own statement that was made at the time the balances were being accrued. It was after the war that he made that statement to the House, and it has never been contradicted. The right hon. Gentleman now says that my right hon. Friend has made a mistake, and I hope he will prove it. Otherwise I repeat to the House that at the time the sterling balances were being accumulated by the countries concerned, my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford had already entered the proviso that these amounts would be subject to counter claims.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am only saying that according to my information that is not so. The right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), who is sitting opposite to me, was a member of

the Government, and if he will get up and tell us that at that period the people concerned were told that the Government were going to put in a counter-claim I shall accept it.

Mr. Eden: I cannot charge my memory on the spur of the moment with the period when these counter-claim declarations were made. I rather think that it was during the war, but I have not got the information at my finger tips. We will try to find it before the conclusion of the debate if it is still wanted.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is within the recollection of those who were in the last Parliament that the first time we heard publicly that the counter-claim would be made was when the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) made the statement at Question Time about 1946 but not before, and certainly not at the time when the money accumulated against this country.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: After what has been said by my right hon. Friend we can for the moment leave this point and, no doubt, it will be the subject, if necessary, of further question at a later date. It is not really important for the purpose of this argument at what date my right hon. Friend made this statement that counter-claims would be made. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are equally committed to this policy. They always try to get rid of it, but if we go back to 1945 and from then onwards, until 1947, we find that there is nothing but a dismal tale by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day, now the Minister of Local Government and Planning, of promises to enter counter-claims, but he never did anything.
I would direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to what he promised to do under Article 10 of the Anglo-American Financial Agreement. Let us look again at what he promised. He promised to release a certain amount of these balances for immediate use, and then he promised to release a further amount after 1951, and finally as to the remainder he undertook that
the balances to be adjusted as a contribution to the settlement of war and post-war indebtedness, and in recognition of the benefits which the countries concerned might be expected to gain from such a settlement.


Then it goes on—and this is the vital phrase:
The Government of the United Kingdom will make every endeavour to secure an early completion of this Agreement.
What have they done? Absolutely nothing to carry out the paragraph promising to scale down sterling balances. In February, 1947, the Minister of Local Government and Planning said that in all the negotiations about sterling balances account must be taken of the comparative war effort of the parties. Shortly afterwards I asked him whether that word "must" was the operative word in the sentence, and he replied, "Yes."
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us tonight for the first time what action has been taken by His Majesty's Government to scale down these debts. I would remind the House that in 1945 they amounted to £350 million. They stand at the same figure today despite all these releases, which have only resulted in a further piling of debts on our shoulders. We are like Sisyphus, who had to roll a stone up a hill, and found that when he got it a certain way it rolled back to the bottom.
There can only be one cause of generosity of this nature, and that is if the sums we release can be afforded by us and will not be any further strain on our economy. The Chancellor has recently made gloomy speeches in this House and on the wireless. He knows as well as I do that in the first two months of this year the visible balance of trade showed that we have incurred 40 per cent. of the total deficit on visible trade accounts that we incurred last year. January and February have shown an adverse balance of £140 million against a total of £350 million for last year.
How can he, with that fact in front of him, say we are going to have further unrequited exports in the case of Egypt? The right hon. Gentleman knows about the shortage of raw materials. His colleague the President of the Board of Trade has told this House how rationing of raw materials is going to be necessary. He has stressed how all materials available must be used to full effect if the rearmament programme is to be successful and the national economy maintained. Yet we are today asked to allow this amount of unrequited exports to Egypt.
I have heard many defences of the situation in Egypt. I have heard, for instance, that they cannot be counted as a co-belligerent. It is said we went there and used them for our own purposes and we were there because our needs demanded occupation of Egypt. Let me remind the House that they declared war on 26th February, 1945, at a time when the end of the war was in sight, and they were at such a distance from the front line that they felt it would be wise to account themselves one of the victorious nations.
We are told that we must be careful and kind to them, because during the war they gave their cotton crop to us in order to enhance our hard currency reserves. I tried to find what was the amount which they actually gave to the sterling area, and I must confess that I have not been able to discover the figure. One has, however, got the figure of their exports to the U.S.A. and Canada between 1945 and the middle of 1950, and in that period the total amount of foreign exchange, of U.S. and Canadian dollars, earned by Egypt averaged 4½ million Egyptian pounds. That is a very small sum when we consider what we have released to them.
Again, I suggest that there is no case in equity for these releases,' particularly when this House remembers that whilst they during the war had surrendered their cotton crop we had surrendered the whole of our overseas trade, most of our investments, and our reserves of hard currency. If there is to be any equation, surely it should be on the basis that both sides surrendered what they had, and, therefore, one should consider only the build-up in the post-war period.
May I come to that? In 1945, even while the war was still on, we granted the Egyptians £10 million of hard currency for their available use. By the time that figure came up for review in the middle of 1947 they had already had 32 million Egyptian pounds worth of convertible currency. Surely that is a tremendous sum. It was a gesture that was certainly generous. Equally, in 1947, we promised them under that agreement that we would give them further releases. We promised them £20 million in cash. We said that we would undertake to pay out of sterling balances for any stores or warlike installations that


were in Egypt and that they bought. I think that was a fair suggestion. But what has never been told to this House is what price the Egyptians paid. Did they pay a fair market price? At what sum were these installations sold?
Also, we undertook to service the Egyptian public debt in countries outside Egypt, including, if necessary, ex-enemy countries. In 1949 we added to our commitments. We said that we would give them £5 million in dollars. We gave them £12 million sterling immediately and £18 million to bolster up the current account of the National Bank of Egypt. Now we are going to release a further £10 million a year on current account for the National Bank of Egypt and to make a special grant of £14 million in currency convertible to dollars. Even if we had not any right to institute counterclaims purely on our own account, surely we had the right to do one thing, and that was to put in counterclaims so as to ensure that this money would be used for the benefit of the Egyptian people, and in particular for the poorer classes in Egypt.
We have not done it. We have made no conditions whatever. This money can be used exactly as the Egyptian authorities like. I could understand the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite that all this generosity to Egypt, which I have recited, should be used to build up the unfortunate people of Egypt, but this money is released purely for luxury purchases in Cairo. That is what it comes to. I have looked up the trade figures and have seen how this money has been spent, on luxury motor cars, cosmetics and so on. Nothing has gone to help the unfortunate Egyptian peasant.
We should object to this agreement which is releasing more money at a time when we need every penny for ourselves, for our own internal commitments and for re-armament, and which will be used merely to afford luxury to a few in Cairo. I can see no justification whatever for this agreement. It is extravagant because it goes far beyond anything that can be demanded by the Egyptians. We should use our resources in this country in order to see ourselves secure and to fulfil our own immediate aims, which are very much for the benefit of our own people, rather than merely pandering to the wishes of a few rich people in Cairo.

For these reasons I hope that this agreement will not be accepted.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: I want to bring the picture painted by the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) round to the subject of payments. In all fairness and balance I would point out that the right hon. Lady the Minister for National Insurance has only just returned from Egypt where she has been investigating the system of social insurance—the Opposition may smile, but it is a beginning—including widows' pensions and social insurance, which the Egyptian Government are setting up. We must point out in all fairness that for the first time in history there is a definite change in that direction.
Secondly, there is one direction in which we made conditions for a loan of money. The hon. and gallant Member will remember—I think I am right, but I am subject to correction—that the Anglo-Egyptian Commission, which was a buying commission for cotton, made a profit of some million pounds during the war. We said that £400,000 of that money would be returned, on condition that the Egyptians used it for supplying rural water schemes in Egypt. This is an appropriate moment for us to hear something from the Treasury bench about that specific promise of £400,000.
I want to ask a few questions. If the Treasury did not make this agreement, what kind of hiatus would we have? What would the situation be economically in this transitional period? It is no use acting in a nihilist fashion, and I do not want to use the word "repudiating," because perhaps it would be wrong, as the Opposition would not support complete repudiation. At this moment it is our duty on this side of the House to exercise a little more judgment than has been exercised on the other side during the last 14 days. In this period, while we are re-arming, if we can get some kind of definite idea about how much of our sterling balances and unrequited exports are to be extracted during the next 12 months or couple of years, it would make it much less difficult for the defence programme and for the war effort—the cold war effort—in this country.
Frankly, for any Financial Secretary or Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that


a dramatic financial agreement like this is not a political one, when we are dealing with a volcanic area like the Middle East, is a hopeless kind of statement for a Chancellor to make to a sophisticated House of Commons. Do we completely accept that there are no political implications or possibilities? What is being hidden from this House? If this agreement is the beginning of a new type of rapprochement, a beginning for the first time in six or seven years of a real foreign policy in the Middle East, I welcome it. Here we have failed more than ever, so far as a crystal clear foreign policy is concerned, in the Eastern Mediterranean. If this is a step towards such a policy, then, whatever excuses may be made from the Treasury bench, I would welcome that approach.
I would emphasise what has been said on both sides of the House that it is time that this foolery with the Israeli situation finished. The situation must now be recognised. I am delighted to see that Egypt has made an honest start at uplifting the standards of the fellaheen. She has made an honest start. With an improvement in the standards of living of the fellaheen and the eradication of the basic problems of poverty and hunger, I am convinced that the Israeli and Egyptian nations can live side by side.
As to traffic through the Suez Canal, every nation—even the United States of America with all her money—must realise that Clapham Junctions of world affairs like the Panama and Suez Canals are, in a shrinking world, no longer the property of the nation to whom they have so long belonged. They are now essential links in modern civilisation. Kipling said that transport is civilisation. The Panama Canal, the Suez Canal and the Isthmus of Kra are instruments of world policy. We have a legitimate right to speak about this. We on this side of the House may make apologies for our reasons for being in Egypt. In 1882 we sent ironclads to bombard Alexandria because the people there could not pay their debts. That was an example par excellence of the use of the mailed fist.

Mr. Somerset de Chair: The hon. Gentleman seems to be a little confused about the events of 1882. At that time Britain and France were invited by Khedive Tewfik, whose position had been affected by the revolu-

tion of Arabi Pasha, to enter Egypt to restore the Khedive. The other matter had nothing to do with it.

Mr. Davies: Despite these euphemisms, nobody denounced it more than did Lord Randolph Churchill himself. If we are to go into legalistic points about the payments and counter-claims, there is a big question mark as to why we are in Egypt at all. There is the issue of the unification of the Nile Valley, the presence of our troops and the issue of the Suez Canal. If the financial agreement will help to get real discussion on these points, it will be justified, but it is a political act. As to the Sudan, there was once a brilliant young lancer officer who wrote a magnificent article about it. Hon. Members may recognise the style. This is what he said about the Nile Valley:
Here, then, is a plain and honest reason for the River War to unite territories that could not definitely have continued divided, to combine peoples whose future welfare is inseparably intermingled; to collect energies which, concentrated, may promote common interest; to join together who could not improve apart. These are the objects which history will pronounce have justified the enterprise.
This was written in most excellent prose by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), many years ago, about the geographical and natural need for unity in the Nile area.
Within all these agreements at the present moment, over-shadowing them all, is the issue of sterling balances. If the Government seek support in this House, they can only get that support on the grounds of a clear new foreign policy approach in this area. If the Government are asking for that approach, there must be co-ordination between the Foreign Office and the Treasury. I am not the type of person who attacks officials who have no chance to reply, but more than ever at this critical time in the history of humanity it is necessary for a democratic House of Commons to have a power over its Foreign Office. This House must be much better informed than it has been in the past on what has been taking place in the Middle East. If the Treasury and the Government think that this will help, they will get our support. All I can say is, that while we are worried about the squeeze that Egypt may have put on us, I wish God-speed to the new Foreign Secretary in bringing about a rapprochement in Middle East affairs.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: The hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) has been a little unfortunate in one or two of his facts. On a matter of historical accuracy he was very properly corrected by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr. de Chair). I wish to correct him on another comparatively small point. When he read an extract from my right hon. Friend's book "The River War," he referred to him as a lancer. My right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford was not a lancer but a hussar. When the hon. Member said he thought that a new approach was being made in the Middle East. I do not know whether he felt that future historians would regard as the starting point the visit to Egypt of the right hon. Lady the Minister of National Insurance. I am not quite certain whether that will be one of the great landmarks in the history of our relations with the Middle East.

Mr. Churchill: The Pyramids will last longer.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) regretted that we were debtors to Egypt, but I think that he appreciates as well as any other hon. Member in the House that those debts were very honourably incurred in her defence and that no counter-claim was made. I hope that the Chancellor will explain exactly why any suggestion of a counter-claim has hitherto fallen on deaf ears on the Government Front Bench.
I do not understand the argument that the agreement with Egypt is a purely financial one. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington i(Mr. Eden) said, the British Treasury official who conducted the negotiations in Cairo described the financial agreement as a good send-off to political talks which will take place in London and Cairo shortly. The Chancellor himself openly admitted that had he attempted to link the question of the sterling balances with that of the illegal blockade of the Suez Canal he would not have got an agreement. Therefore, from his own mouth he has admitted that the implications of the agreement were not purely financial.
The truth is that no agreement of this sort ever is purely financial. A Treasury colleague of the right hon. Gentleman is now negotiating over meat in Buenos

Aires. Will the Chancellor claim that the implications of these negotiations, be they successful or unsuccessful, are purely financial? Nor do I believe that it can be argued conversely that the illegal blockade of the Suez Canal is purely political, because it has involved this country and others in losses running into millions of dollars. In the Middle East, where our interests are vital, strength is respected and weakness is despised. It is incredible that at no stage during the negotiations for a financial agreement was the question of the illegal blockade of the Suez Canal ever raised.
I cannot understand how any Government of whatever political colour, worthy of the name of His Majesty's Government, could possibly have made these concessions when the Egyptians in the first place have unilaterally repudiated the 1936 Treaty and when, in the second place, they are carrying out an illegal blockade of the Suez Canal quite contrary to the terms of the Suez Canal Convention.
I want to point out one other aspect to the right hon. Gentleman. Any weakness shown by His Majesty's Government in their relations or in her negotiations with Egypt, is bound to have serious repercussions upon Anglo-Persian relations. And Anglo-Persian relations are going through a very critical stage owing to proposed nationalisation by the Persian Government of the Anglo-Iranian oil interests. Indeed it would be ironic, and almost funny if it were not so serious, that our vital oil interests in the Middle East should be threatened by a policy of nationalisation by another Government. I beg the Chancellor to recognise that the more he gives way to Egypt, the more difficult it will be to stand up to Persia. Like a snowball, weakness grows. The Government must stop giving way to anybody who shouts loudly enough. They must stand up for Britain's legitimate rights, and particularly for those upon which vital military and economic interests in the Middle East depend.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Crossman: I shall not follow hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite in making a sweeping attack on this agreement. Least of all shall I follow the experts of the City of London who set themselves up to be such great examples of financial rectitude and then seem to advocate the general principle,


"Welsh on your debts if you possibly can." I am willing to be convinced that this agreement, in its strictly financial terms, is a good agreement for this country, and I want to concentrate on the clause on which the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) concentrated, the clause dealing with oil.
All the rest of the agreement seems to me to be perfectly intelligible and perfectly defensible, but I would say this to my right hon. Friend: I can understand that we have to release sterling balances, because we have never frozen them. But what matters is not how much sterling we release but what the Egyptians do with the sterling when we have released it. What matters is that we have only a limited amount of goods and capital equipment to go overseas in this year of re-armament. Surely, therefore, it is important to see that those goods and that capital equipment go to the people who strengthen the cause of democracy, and not to those who will use it for luxury cars in which to drive round the streets of Cairo.
We have had trouble, as my right hon. Friend knows, in the last debate on Egypt. It was about 14 Centurion tanks—not about money, but about the things which the Egyptians were to buy with the money which the right hon. Gentleman was granting them, very properly, under the sterling balances agreement. I would like to feel sure that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues are planning our export licence policy in such a way as at least to ensure that none of the money released under this agreement can be used for the purchase of arms by the Egyptian Government. I should like to feel perfectly certain by having a categoric reassurance tonight that none of the money will be able to be used for purchasing jet aircraft or Centurion tanks or other things which should go to people who can use them most usefully.

Captain Soames: Does the hon. Gentleman include in that the destroyer which is now lying in one of our dockyards?

Mr. Crossman: I am including all arms. It is not merely a question of how much money the Egyptians get, but whether we are ensuring that they will not be able to purchase with that money

weapons which would be much better sent to other countries.

Mr. Churchill: On the contrary, the destroyer which is being finished here, which we need for our anti-U-boat defence, is to be sent to Egypt. As I understand it, instead of our getting any return for this important export—important from every aspect—a line is drawn through a part of our so-called sterling balance.

Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, because what he says merely confirms the need for an assurance being given to the House that the release of these balances will be accompanied by a change of policy under the new Foreign Secretary in regard to export licences. This is what the House is more concerned with than the technicalities of financial agreements. We are really concerned about whether arms will go to Egypt again.
May I make one other point on that? Let us take two countries in the Middle East, Israel and Egypt. The Israeli Government is now in the middle of a disastrous economic crisis. It is desperately short of sterling. If it had sterling it could buy the food necessary to prevent starvation. The Chancellor must remember that sterling is being released to the Egyptians in very large quantities. It will certainly not go to the poor fellaheen. At the same time. we are refusing credits to Israel and Jordan—they have been given relatively generous sterling settlements because they have very small balances—which would enable them to develop their strength.
It is the discrepancy between the amount of goods which Egypt will be able to acquire under this settlement, and the desperate failure to provide the means by which Israel and Jordon could get an adequate supply of goods which is the political issue to which we call the attention of the Chancellor. [Interruption.]I realise that under no sterling credit agreement could he possibly give Israel or Jordan more generous treatment. All I say is that we should give them more generous commercial agreements.
To turn to the oil clause, the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington mentioned the loss to Israel involved in the closing of the Haifa refinery. The


loss to this country should not be underestimated. I do not know whether anybody has calculated the amount of dollars we could have earned from the Haifa refinery if it had been in full supply since 15th May, 1948, when it closed. It is a long time since we have been deprived month by month of the dollar earning capacity of the Haifa refinery, and it is ironic to recall that the country which has deprived us of millions of dollars under this agreement, has special privileges to prevent its using dollars to buy oil that really is generosity!
I know that turning the other cheek is a noble and ethical principle, but I do not think it is understood in the Middle East. It was not understood when Lord Stansgate went to Egypt in 1946 and granted, straight away, the main thing the Egyptians wanted, the withdrawal of British troops. That was not thought to be generosity; it was thought to be weakness.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer may say that this is a strictly financial agreement. I wish that he and I could have had a tour of the Middle East together to compare notes. In this Chamber he may be able to tell us, "I do this, my right hon. Friend does that; this is my part in the work, that is his part of the work." Out in the Middle East they do not make those distinctions. They do not say, "This right hon. Gentleman is doing this and, therefore, it is a financial agreement; that right hon. Gentleman is doing that, therefore it is political." They see it all as British policy, and every Middle Eastern country will be judging this agreement fairly or unfairly, especially the oil clause, and saying, "Some more Danegeld by the British to the Egyptians."
Now, my right hon. Friend knows as well as I do that the Egyptians are not the only recipients of Danegeld. The Iraqi cut off the pipeline to Haifa three years ago. Each year the Chancellor has arranged that they shall be provided from this country with just sufficient sterling to make up for any losses they might have incurred on the oil royalities from the pipeline—the pipeline they closed in order to prevent us earning dollars. This year the agreement with Iraq was made again. It may be a noble and a generous thing to do, but in the Middle East it is thought to be Danegeld; it is thought that the Iraqi and Egyptians are so hostile

that we have to treat them gently. And our friends in the Middle East—they are not many, Israel, Jordan and Turkey—do not appreciate the fact that their friendship and loyalty are repaid by being given less because their price for friendship is not so high.
I agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) when he said that our problem in Persia is not unrelated to our treatment of Iraq and Egypt. If we pay a man more the more hostile he is to us, and if we pay our friends less because they are loyal friends, there comes a time when somebody in Persia says, "If I want to squeeze some more out of the Anglo-Iranian Company, I must be really hostile to the British, then I will get a couple of million more." This is not an unrelated fact.
Time after time in the last five years, from this side of the House, we have consistently complained that we have always rewarded our enemies and adjudicated against our friends. It is a disheartening situation, which I must describe as the last dying kick of a policy which has utterly failed. We here below the Gangway are left in some difficulty. In any normal circumstances, one would find it very difficult indeed to support the Government on the agreement.

Mr. Boothby: Vote against it.

Mr. Grossman: The hon. Member, having failed in his attempt to drive us hysterical in other ways, will not achieve anything so stupid now.
We have to observe, thank Heavens, that we have a new regime at the Foreign Office. We will give that regime a chance to see whether it will reshape our Middle Eastern policy; and we shall hope that when the new Foreign Secretary masters his officials he will not permit the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say, "These are purely financial affairs." The new Foreign Secretary should, in future, say to him, "No. In the Middle East, the purely financial often is the most highly political. In the Middle East I must have a concerted, co-ordinated policy." It is in that spirit of good will and constructive hope to the new Foreign Secretary that I shall vote for the Government today.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: I do not want to detain the House for more than a few moments, but the Chancellor


of the Exchequer must realise that this has been a very rough debate for him. I have listened to every sentence of it, but I have heard absolutely no defence of the Government, from either side, of any sort or kind, except a word of two from the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies), who painted a wonderful picture of Egypt as a great welfare state.

Mr. Harold Davies: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is completely untrue. Egypt was not painted as a wonderful welfare State. What I said was that there, for the first time in history, was the beginning so far as a social welfare State was concerned.

Mr. Boothby: I would recommend the hon. Member to study the Egyptian income tax, and especially their surtax.

Mr. Davies: I described their social welfare.

Mr. Boothby: The hon. Member would find their taxation even more significant and interesting; and he could then make his comparisons between the Pashas and the unfortunate rich, or the so-called rich, in this country. I do not think he would find it a very fine example of the welfare State.
The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) asked whether the agreement was part of a general political settlement, or was purely a financial agreement. I can see the hon. Member's difficulties, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already told us that it is a purely financial agreement, and his financial representative in Cairo has said that it is the beginnings, and the favourable beginnings, of a great step forward to a big political settlement. We are, therefore, a little bewildered about what it really is. The only thing about which we seem to be absolutely solid is that -it is a pretty bad show, whatever it is intended to be part of, or not part of.
I could not agree more than I did with the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I think that our policy in the Middle East—I am on the record about this—has been disastrous in the last three years; and I think it remains disastrous today. We created the national home for the Jews. We then left them to fight for it against odds of 10 to 1; and we have not done much for them since. I have always

believed that that is a stain on British history, and will be so regarded for generations and indeed centuries to come.
Since then we have done very little for Israel, but we have done an awful lot for Egypt. We have sold them jet fighters.

Mr. Crossman: Lincoln bombers.

Mr. Boothby: The only thing, I think, which is fairly certain is that they do not do very much flying. We have done this despite the fact that they have blockaded the Suez Canal, in direct defiance of the terms of the Suez Convention. They have prevented our tankers, as has been said over and over again, reaching the Haifa refineries, in flagrant defiance of their written obligations.
I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Cross-man) has just said, that the oil clause in this agreement, quite apart from the question of sterling balances as such, which is a wider issue, is absolutely scandalous in existing circumstance. There is no other expression which can be used to describe it. We are making special arrangements, for years to come, to give Egypt facilities for importing oil at the very moment when, in defiance of her international obligations, she is denying oil to this country and refusing our tankers access to the Suez Canal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows perfectly well that this is an indefensible proposition.
In conclusion, I have a few remarks to make about the sterling balances generally. There was a little argument just now about when we first put forward the idea that we had some counter claims in this matter. I remember very well the negotiations preceding the first American loan. The Americans then insisted upon the scaling down of the sterling balances generally, almost to the point of making it a condition of that agreement. This was published all over the world at the time of the negotiations, when Lord Keynes was in Washington, and after the Agreement was signed. It was well known when the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) was Financial Secretary to the Treasury, long before any of these negotiations were entered upon, that the Americans had stressed most strongly


that we must scale down these sterling obligations. I understood that the Treasury had agreed to that.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not think that what the hon. Member says is disputed. The point in dispute was whether the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) had, at the time these balances were piling up, said to those to whom we owed the money, "We are not paying you in full. There will have to be some sort of readjustment later."

Mr. Boothby: Let us glance for a moment at the merits. I quite agree that India and Pakistan—Dominions—have special claims for our consideration; but is it not quite obvious that we have counter claims for what we did for all these countries? Does it satisfy the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should come here and say, "We put in these counter claims to Egypt, but they would not pay the faintest attention to them; they brushed them aside. Nevertheless, we are going to hand over to them £150 million during the next 12 or 13 years"? That is what the right hon. Gentleman has said—that unfortunately, the Egyptians would not listen to our counter claims, which is just too bad; so we have to leave them out, and give them the money all the same.
That is not my idea of a reasonable or rational negotiation. The fact remains that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now given away scores of millions of pounds, for years to come, in the form of totally unrequited exports, at a time when our balance of trade is adverse and when we are in desperate need of raw materials. I do not think that that is a wise policy. I do not want to tread on any corns, but I venture to say that the Government do not possess the necessary authority to dish out millions of pounds of the British taxpayers' money in the form of unrequited exports for years to come when everybody, on both sides of the House, who is honest with himself, knows very well that in these negotiations they have not fought for British interests.
The Government have made concessions, quite unjustifiably, to the Egyptian Government, under conditions which the House regards as quite intolerable. I venture to suggest that unless the right hon. Gentleman gives a much better and more helpful reply than at present appears

likely, hon. Gentlemen opposite should at last pluck up their courage and vote against this, agreement, and let us have that Dissolution which we all desire so much.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: This has been not only a very interesting, but a very instructive debate and I hope the Government Front Bench have taken advantage of the instruction they have had from every part of the House.
I agree that, so far, in every speech there has been criticism of this agreement and criticism of the policy of the Government. I do not think there was one hon. Member on the benches behind the Chancellor who had a good word to say in defence of carrying this agreement through as it is today, not even the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid). He tried to defend it but really fell back on the plea of guilty with a rider for mitigation of sentence. What we are all anxious to know is what the Government propose to do? Here we are, on the Adjournment of the House, and I was hoping, as other hon. Members were hoping, to have heard earlier from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the proposals of the Government in connection with this matter. So far as we understand it, all that has happened is that an agreement in terms or in principle has been made. It has still to be put into full form and still to be signed by the respective Governments.
The hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) hoped that there would be a change of policy now there has been a change at the Foreign Office. May I remind the hon. Member of what the new Foreign Secretary has said on this very question in answer to the questions which were raised last Thursday? It is rather interesting to see how these questions are regarded. I think it has been instructive to all of us to realise how necessary it is, before Governments come to agreements of this kind, that they should put the matter to the House so that they can get the opinion of the House on whether the policy should go through or not.
The attitude taken by the Foreign Secretary was this. He said:
My hon. Friends have asked about that in connection with other matters, and the Leader of the Opposition has always supported the view that the Government have a right


to make treaties and agreements and the House a right to upset them afterwards."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 1785.]
That may or may not be the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition—I do not know—but that was the statement made by the new Foreign Secretary; he supported it. The Government now realise the views of the House as expressed from every quarter, that hon. Members do not like this agreement, do not like the way it has been made. They dislike the policy hitherto followed by the Government in the Middle East, they dislike its tenderness towards Egypt, and they dislike its intransigence in regard to Israel. Instead of helping Israel, Jordan and other countries to come to an agreement the feeling in those parts of the world is that the Government have rather discouraged them at the request of Egypt.
I agree with all the epithets that have been thrown at the Government for daring to suggest that this is purely a financial matter, quite unconnected with policy and our position in the Middle East. They are certainly connected. Are we to say that the financial right hand is entitled to do something without any consultation whatever with the Foreign Office left hand, and that the Foreign Office knew nothing at all about this? Merely to put it in that form supplies the answer straight away. What we are now anxious to know on every side of the House is: Is there now a change of policy in the Foreign Office, with a new Foreign Secretary? If there is, will this agreement be signed now, in spite of the opinion of the House, or be withheld until further negotiations can be entered into on a far broader basis, dealing with all the matters which arise in the Middle East? Will those matters then be submitted to the House, so that it may know and judge for itself of the Tightness or otherwise of that new policy? We are entitled to know that from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I wish he had intervened earlier.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: There has been in the House this afternoon a really extraordinary consensus of agreement that it is the oil issues in this agreement that are really its important and most

objectionable feature. I rise briefly to deal with those issues, but before I do so, I wish to make a passing reference to the financial side of the question.
I want to draw particular attention to the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby) with regard to the Financial Agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom in December, 1945. I need not repeat the general argument, but there was an obligation under that Agreement for the scaling down of the sterling balances according to the different circumstances of the various countries. I would direct the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Article 10 of that Agreement which is headed, "The Accumulated Sterling Balances" and ask him whether he could interpret that Article in relation to the Government's conduct in negotiations leading up to this financial Agreement?
In particular I should like him to resolve for me, and incidentally for the House, the curious contradiction about the conduct of these negotiations and the question of whether or not the Government have ever made a counter-claim in this regard in respect of Egypt because, on 28th November, 1950, the Chancellor is reported as replying in respect of this matter:
I cannot accept that it has ever been our policy to put in counter-claims."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1950; Vol. 481. c. 946.]
The other day my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) asked specifically:
… whether these sterling balances were not always, in accordance with the policy of the National Coalition Government, to be subject to off-sets made against them by claims for having defended the freedom and safety of that country during the period of the war?
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury replied:
Yes, Sir, these claims were made by the Government in 1947; but unfortunately agreement on that point could not be reached with the Egyptian Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 1783.]
The House would rather like to know which of these two hon. Gentlemen is correct and whether or not the Government have in fact made the offset claims in respect of sterling balances in regard to Egypt. I shall leave that subject


except to say that if they had conducted the negotiations with Egypt in such uncertain voice as they have informed the House about the matter, they cannot have pressed them very successfully or energetically.
I turn to the oil issue which I think falls naturally under two separate heads. First there is the loss of oil which results to the sterling area oil programme as a result of the closing down of the Canal and the non-working of the Haifa Refinery and, secondly, our facilitation of supplies of oil especially to Egypt. I deal first with the question of our losses in oil by the closing down of the Haifa Refinery and I would remind the House that Haifa is a major oil refinery. At the beginning of the war, it had a capacity of two million tons. It was so important during the war that towards the end we increased the capacity, even when we were under the stress of war, to four million tons a year. It is extremely important both in peace and in war for supplying oil requirements throughout the Mediterranean area. According to the best of the estimates which I have been able to obtain, this refinery would cost £40 million to build at present.
There is, in the oil supply situation, a bottleneck in refineries. That is a limiting factor in the production of oil, particularly in the sterling area. That is why the Government are now pressing on so hard with the construction of refineries in this country. Therefore, when this oil could not come through the Canal to Haifa, it was definitely a loss to the sterling area oil programme of the total amount of oil that could have been refined at Haifa. That refinery was closed in April, 1948, and it remained totally closed until September, 1950, a period of two and a half years. We were, broadly speaking, losing oil to the extent of four million tons per year during that period, so the House will see that the total amount which we lost during that first period of two and a half years was 10 million tons of oil.
All this time we have been engaged in supplying Israel, which has this great refinery within her borders, with refined products from refineries in the rest of the sterling area. But in September, 1950, it was thought that that really could not go on any longer. It was, therefore, decided to start up the refinery to the extent of

20 to 25 per cent.. even though it was necessary to bring the oil almost literally from the ends of the earth in order to do so. Accordingly, during the period since the refinery has been operating to the extent of about 20 to 25 per cent., or about one million tons per year, the loss of oil to the sterling area has fallen to about three million tons per year. That has been going on for about six months, so we have lost about 1,500,000 tons during the last phase of this difficult time.
We have, therefore, lost altogether about 11½ million tons of oil so far as a result of the unfortunate position at Haifa, and through the action of the Egyptian Government in regard to tankers coming through the Canal. At present values that quantity of oil would represent a cost of about £80 million. I think that the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), asked how much it would cost in dollars. I do not think that 200 million dollars would be too large a figure to give, but the Chancellor can no doubt enlighten us further if he has made the calculation.
What have we to do in order to keep this refinery operating as it is at the present time, on a 20 to 25 per cent. basis? Most of the oil is coming from the Caribbean on the other side of the Atlantic. That entails a round voyage of 11,500 miles. It is 4,500 miles more than would be the voyage to the Gulf of Persia and back. Think of the waste of tankers this sum involves, which has been put as high as 30 tankers. Remember, too, that tanker freights have advanced by 200 per cent. in the last two years. Who can say what effect in forcing up these freights has been caused by these excessive demands for tankers to bring this oil these ludicrous distances across the world to be refined in Haifa because oil could not be brought from the Persian Gulf.
I turn for a moment to the other side of the question, namely our facilitation of oil supplies to Egypt. The Financial Secretary told us the other day that this had been going on on a temporary basis for three years. If we accept the present figure in the Agreement of £11 million worth of oil a year, it means that Egypt, with a production of about 1,500,000 to 1,750,000 tons, needs an extra 1,500,000 to 1,750,000 tons, which would be worth about £11 million. We have done that for three years, which is the same time


as we have been suffering on the other side of the balance sheet the loss which I have already described. That would amount, on present figures, to about £30 million worth of oil. Let us say, in order to take a perhaps conservative figure, that it is only £20 million: it means that in one way or another Egypt has made a draft on the sterling oil programme to the tune of about £100 million in the last three years.
If we look into the future it is still the case that we shall lose, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) said, to the extent of £20 million and that we are to continue to facilitate Egypt to the extent of £10 million. That again means a continuing draft to the extent of £30 million a year upon our oil resources. The Government say that we must not mix the financial agreement, which they say is purely financial, with any larger political question, such as they assert is that of the tankers coming through the Canal. I can understand that point of view though I may not agree with it, but is there not a very big financial side to us in the damage that we are suffering as the result of the Egyptian action in the Canal?
Supposing that the Government wished to avoid, for reasons of diplomacy—I do not say whether that would be a right or wrong reason—large political issues of that kind, would it not have been possible to have gone in a commonsense manner to the Egyptian Government and said, "You ask us to facilitate the supply to you of £11 million worth of oil a year. Part of that oil would naturally be supplied from Haifa, which is so near to Alexandria—just over 150 miles or so away. We will undertake to facilitate the supply of the £11 million worth of oil to you if, and mark this, this suggestion is a compromise with which the House might not agree and you will agree to facilitate the passage through the Canal to us of oil equivalent to the amount which we engage to supply to you"?
I do not say that that would be the right line to have taken, but I say that it is a possible line that might have been taken which would have kept the matter open on a financial plane, and would have avoided the larger political issues. If "The Times" is right in stating, as it did the other day, that Egypt has put

herself in a false position from which it is difficult for her to climb down, that would have given a reason on an economic and financial ground why she should modify her existing strict policy. That might have had the effect of unfreezing the position and producing a situation from which we might have got into an altogether superior position.
I wish, with respect, to offer a remark or two on the broader question. The Government have, in the last few days, brought forward in this House the doctrine that an economic and a financial question has to be kept strictly segregated from a political question. I do not know exactly upon what they found that doctrine, but it is surely running counter to the whole of the development of diplomacy during this century. During that time the whole history of diplomacy has been that economic and financial questions have become of more importance and have coloured the complexion of almost every political question.
So much is this the case that the actual structure of the Foreign Office has in recent years been modified. The old distinction between the consular, commercial and diplomatic services has been abolished. That has produced a service which deals with all these matters because it is desirable to treat economic, financial and political matters in a unified way in order to deal with them more effectively. And that applies also even to the entrance qualification for the Foreign Office at the present time.
I very much agree both with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), that whatever distinction may be made between purely financial and political questions in this House, that is not the kind of distinction likely to be made in the Middle Eastern countries. I feel that both on the purely financial side, and particularly on the oil side, there must have been created in the minds of people in the Middle Eastern countries a sense of great weakness on the part of His Majesty's Government.
The hon. Member for Coventry, East, has referred to possible repercussions about Egypt, and this further issue of the tankers, on the Persian situation. I do not know whether the House has noticed, but now there has been a reaction otherwise, in that there is a project coming


forward for the nationalisation of the Canal. So we get a sense of weakness produced in one country creating an impression in another, and it comes back again all round. I think it would be true to say—and those who have more practice in diplomacy than I would agree—that an impression of weakness in diplomacy is, in its effect, not only specific, but balances are concerned, in what her strong they take advantage of us and that, I am afraid, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton has said, will be the situation likely to develop in the Middle East.
I would suggest therefore that we require further assurances from the right hon. Gentleman. Unless he is able to give satisfactory assurances he ought to withdraw this agreement, and this House ought to make it clear in the Middle East that there is a limit beyond which this country cannot be pushed.

6.42 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gaitskell): The proposed agreement has to some extent been criticised on its merits as a financial agreement. But I think the House will agree that the major part of the criticism directed against it is that it did not contain some political quid pro quo, and particularly a change in Egyptian policy regarding the Suez Canal.
I want, first, to make it plain that there was no lack of co-operation here between the Treasury and the Foreign Office. There was, of course, the very closest consultation between myself and "my right hon. Friend. As a matter of fact, at the time when these financial discussions started, last December, the Egyptian Minister for Foreign Affairs, who was then here, was also having some political discussions with my right hon. Friend. We have never said, either, that there should be a complete distinction always between economic and political affairs. Obviously, that would be very silly. All we have said is that this was, for better or worse, a purely financial agreement. It may be argued that it should not have been—and I propose to deal with that argument in a moment—but I wish to make plain that we are not saying that under no circumstances should we mix up these two things.
May I deal, first, with one or two other minor points—points, at any rate, out of the main argument—which have been

raised by a number of hon. Members. I have been told that this agreement will be regarded as entirely favourable to Egypt in comparison with Israel and Transjordan. I am bound to say that I do not think that that is really justified. We treated Israel, so far as her sterling balances are concerned, in what her own Finance Minister regarded as being an extremely generous way. We have, in fact, agreed to the full repayment of the remaining balances in two years.
As for Transjordan, as is well known to hon. Members and to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), we are, after all, subsidising the Transjordan Government, or rather the Jordan Government, to a very considerable extent; and we have had extremely satisfactory financial discussions with them which proceeded so far as I know, in complete harmony. I have never heard a criticism from the Jordan Government about them, so I do not think that anyone can say that it is much more favourable unless one says that any agreement which involves a lot more money over a long period of time is a lot more favourable. But that is to say, that no debt of this kind should ever have been accumulated.
That brings me to what I think we must regard as the first crucial question raised here: whether the settlement should have included something else. That means that we have to ask ourselves in what circumstances would we have had no settlement at all. We must be realistic. I know that hon. Members who feel strongly about the subject will agree that if we say we ought to have insisted on this, that and the other, we have also to face the fact of what would happen if we did not get agreement.
We must here come back to the origin of these balances, and I am glad to see the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) in his place. They relate to the purchases we made in Egypt; money we spent in Egypt; what we bought from Egypt during the war years, less what we—the sterling area as a whole—sold to Egypt during that period. They were the difference between receipts and payments so far as sterling trade was concerned with Egypt in those years. The sterling balances, in consequence, rose from about £40 million in 1939 to nearly £350 million in 1946. This was sterling payments to


the credit of Egypt in the Bank of England and other banks here. There was no attempt, at that stage, to distinguish these balances in any way. It was simply the net result of all the sterling transactions between ourselves and Egypt during those years.
I find it perfectly natural that most of us—certainly a very large number of hon. Members here—should feel that all this expenditure was incurred by us for the benefit of Egypt, and we should therefore resent having to acknowledge any debt. I understand that point of view; and I may say that in 1947, when negotiations were started in an attempt at a long-term agreement, this point of view was very forcibly expressed by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is what he told the House:
At the outset of the negotiations in London on 6th June, I made it clear that British public opinion does not recognise the moral validity of the debt of some £400 million arising out of the war-time association of Egypt and the British Commonwealth. I, therefore, urged the Egyptian representatives to make proposals for the cancellation, in whole or in part, of this war debt arising out of our war effort, so costly both in blood and treasure in defence of Egypt. The Egyptian Government have not so far felt able to respond to this appeal, but the clear judgment of His Majesty's Government is on record."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1947; Vol. 439, c. 1518.]

Mr. Churchill: Did the right hon. Gentleman make this statement in the House of Commons?

Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir, in the House of Commons, in the course of negotiations. Indeed, even before that our representatives in Cairo, at the preliminary discussion preceding the London negotiations, had, in fact, proposed to the Egyptians that there should be a cancellation. The talk about counterclaims and cancellations is really a matter of words. We have never clearly put forward counter-claims, but we did ask for the cancellation of part of the debt. Unfortunately, the Egyptian Government refused, quite firmly and politely, and said it would be completely impossible at that time, in 1947, and since, to reach any agreement on this matter.
Having said that, I must emphasise that to record our opinion on cancellation—and I mentioned this during the course

of the negotiations last December—is not the same thing as cancelling, by our own unilateral action, an obligation which has been incurred as a result of those transactions in the war. That has never been our policy. My predecessor made this plain in December, 1949, when he said that, quite obviously, we could not scale down any debts without agreement with the other parties. In the 1945 Loan Agreement, to which reference has been made, the wording is that the Government of the United Kingdom intends to make agreements with the countries concerned. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby) will remember that there are various types, including some cancellations.

Mr. Churchill: Did we pay the American debt for the First World War? Mr. Baldwin made an agreement, but the agreement was not fulfilled.

Mr. Gaitskell: As far as I am aware, there was no unilateral repudiation of the debt.

Mr. Churchill: The unilateral action consisted of our not paying the money and their acquiescing in that.

Mr. Gaitskell: That was in circumstances when we really had no more gold or dollars left, as far as I can recollect. I agree that one can say, "This is unfair; we think you ought at least to cancel some part of the debt."

Mr. Walter Fletcher (Bury and Radcliffe): Why not freeze the balances?

Mr. Gaitskell: That is a very different proposition. I will bring some arguments to bear on that and other points which I will come to later. That is quite different from repudiating a debt unilaterally.
We must remember, whether we like it or not, that there is a different point of view about this matter in Egypt. I must say that while listening to some of the speeches, it struck me that some hon. Members did not have very much idea of what the feeling and public opinion was there. We must remember that Egypt occupies a key situation in the Middle East—a very important situation. We may as well take note of their attitude. Egypt was neutral in the last war.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: No.

Mr. Gaitskell: Neutral until practically the very end of the war. Throughout all


the war, during which we were running up these debts with Egypt, she was neutral. She did not invite us to assist her. She was not one of our Allies in the war. She was merely carrying out the 1936 Treaty in giving us the facilities which she had undertaken to give. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington will remember, because he negotiated it himself, there was nothing said in that Treaty about giving us these facilities for nothing. It was understood—it must have been understood; and I am sure that he would not disagree—that we would pay for these facilities; that we would make some arrangement about them.
As far as I have been able to discover, at no time while these payments were being made was anything said to the Egyptians about our scaling down the debt in future or having some special post-war settlement or putting in any counter-claims. This point arose earlier in the debate, when the right hon. Gentleman happened to be out of the House for a moment. If the right hon. Gentleman can point to anything that was said to the Egyptians at that time, or indeed anything said publicly in this House or anywhere else during those war years, that we intended to do this, I should be only too interested to hear it. I have searched everywhere, but I have been unable to find anything.

Mr. Churchill: Naturally, I cannot supply all this out of my memory; but this I do know. It was the solemn, repeated agreement of the War Cabinet, of all parties, that we should put in our counter-claims for repayment as against the debt which was being piled up. Whether that was imparted to them or not, I could not remember at the moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite say "Ah." What is the point in that? I thought it was a fair thing that the British, who were dying in defence of Egypt against Rommel, and so forth, should have some claim to consideration for the cost of maintaining our troops. It is a great pity that it was not brought up. I agree that I cannot at this moment quote when it was done, but it is clear from the statement of his predecessor, quoted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that we thought that was right and proper. We should have insisted upon that and

enforced it by the simple process of not letting them draw on the sterling balances.

Mr. Monslow: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there was a recorded Cabinet minute of that?

Mr. Churchill: I am sure there was.

Mr. Gaitskell: A decision taken within the Cabinet is one thing. I can well understand that attitude, but surely the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is one thing to say to oneself, "We will put in a counter-claim afterwards; we will demand some cancellation," as we have done; but it would have been very much better if we wanted to enforce that demand upon Egypt to be able to say, "We told you at the time that we were going to do this." Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that it would be in good faith to say to the Egyptians, "Sell us the cotton and the other things we need. Here is the sterling for it. We have it in mind that we are not going to pay you, but we are not going to tell you about it now"?

Mr. Churchill: I think it would have been in perfectly good faith, after the war was over, to say to the Egyptians, "Here is our counter-claim. We maintain that one must be set off against the other." I am quite aware that there are things like cotton, and so on, which were of a commercial character. I am speaking of the actual money paid out for the maintenance of the armies which saved Cairo and Alexandria from being pillaged.

Mr. Gaitskell: It is unfortunate that these moneys were never separated—never put into a separate account. The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that. It is one thing to say, "Yes, we will put in a counter-claim," as we have done; it is another thing to say that that implies that they should give way.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: Has there been any counter-claim?

Mr. Gaitskell: Whether it is described as a counter-claim or as a cancellation is really a matter of words. What I said earlier is that we have asked that part, or the whole, of the debt should be cancelled. In 1947, we asked that and, in fact, the point arose in later discussions.

Mr. Pitman: But the Government have not put in a counter-claim.

Mr. Gaitskell: That really is only a distinction of words. One puts in a demand for a cancellation because one says, "We have done something for you." There is not much difference between the two. I might say that these sterling payments, all lumped together, were not even blocked until 1947. They simply remained in the account of the Egyptian Government, or the Bank of Egypt, with the Bank of England. The Egyptian Government could have used them as they wanted. They did not, in fact, use them very much at that time, because there was very little to buy.
In the circumstances, I cannot see how, on the basis of what had happened then, we could have unilaterally cancelled them or failed to honour them.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Why not freeze them?

Mr. Gaitskell: I will come to that point in a moment.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford to bear this point in mind. Suppose, after obtaining these goods and facilities from a country professedly and, indeed, obviously neutral until the very end of the war—handing over sterling for this purpose—we then say, "Now we are not going to pay you," what sort of an impression would that create, should such a need arise on any future occasion? What sort of attitude is Egypt, or any other country from whom we might want to buy in similar circumstances in a future war, to adopt if they know that, after the previous one, we simply repudiated the sterling debt?

Mr. McAdden: America helped us just the same.

Mr. Gaitskell: Before I go any further——

Mr. Churchill: Were there not very considerable representations made on this matter by the United States, that we should curtail our sterling balances in his way as part of the general process of Lend-Lease applied, in a different form, to other quarters of the world?

Mr. Gaitskell: I have already explained to the right hon. Gentleman that in the 1945 Loan Agreement which we signed we undertook to try to make agreements with the countries concerned; but it

takes two to make an agreement. That is a different point.
I turn to the post-war issue of these debts, because we really must have that background in mind before we judge the immediate proposals before us. To begin with, there was no blocking whatever and the Egyptian Balances were completely free. We made available in the first few years up to 1947 quite a substantial amount of dollars. At that time, Egypt was a member of the Sterling Area, and that was, no doubt, something which had to be taken into account. We released—converted, if you like—52 million dollars a year on the average at that time. That was in the first 2½years.
In 1947, we had the negotiations for a longer term settlement, which, as I have said, broke down, and, meanwhile, we had Egypt leaving the Sterling Area, and then the blocking of the balances by agreement. This was an agreement made, and not, so far as I know, criticised at the time, under which Egypt agreed to the blocking of £357 million worth of dollars, subject to a particular right to draw for certain purposes including those mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre), and also the annual agreement on releases for current purposes. We then had negotiations every year on how much was to be released. These always took place with great friction and lasted a very long time before they were concluded, and they certainly did not help our political relations with Egypt.
In the course of these years, we released the following sums of money; in 1947, £35 million; in 1948, £32 million; in 1949, £12 million, and in 1950, £18 million. These were the results of the annually negotiated agreements under the general agreement of 1947. I do not think that anybody who took part in those negotiations—and I can only recall the very last one of all—could disagree with the fact that the whole procedure was profoundly unsatisfactory to everybody concerned. We were faced each time with the major problem of what to do supposing we could not agree on the releases.

Mr. Churchill: You did not pay up.

Mr. Gaitskell: No, you did not pay up; in other words, when they presented


the cheque, you dishonoured it. That is the problem, but there are other difficulties that we have to bear in mind.
I want to say something about the so-called dollar and oil arrangements which have been referred to by a number of speakers, and which, I can see very readily, have created a great deal of difficulty for reasonable persons. I want to explain them. Even before the blocking of the balances, there were arrangements to provide dollars each year, as, after all, other members of the Sterling Area were also entitled to dollars. After the blocking of the balances, there were also some further releases of dollars. For example, $25 million in 1948.
In 1949, a new arrangement was made, and I assure the House that the purpose of this was purely financial, and it was that, instead of giving them straight dollars, we were able to say that we would facilitate the supply of oil against sterling. There was nothing in our minds or in the minds of the Egyptians about getting hold of physical supplies. There was no difficulty about that at all. All that was involved was that we should provide them with this oil, some of which involved us in dollar costs. It was, in other words, for better or worse, simply a way of providing them with a little dollar ration that was not a straight dollar ration. It happened to be a convenient way of doing that particular thing, and that is all there was in it. There never has been any idea in our minds of facilitating supplies in the physical sense.
The position which we had reached in 1950 was that these negotiations in each year took a very long time, were extremely difficult and were concluded only with the greatest of difficulty. In the course of the discussions in 1950, it was suggested that we should then negotiate, or try to negotiate, a long term settlement. I have yet to see what is wrong in trying to negotiate a long-term settlement of what is a purely financial matter, and perhaps the House will agree that there is a lot to be said for it.

Mr. Boothby: Not for a bad settlement.

Mr. Gaitskell: The hon. Member would be against any sort of settlement, because he does not like the Egyptians. I am saying that, in principle, it is thoroughly desirable to have a long-term

settlement, because it gives an element of certainty, security and fixedness about the whole thing which was absent in these annual negotiations. I am not saying that any long-term settlement is better than a short-term one, but, if one can get a satisfactory agreement, there is a very great deal to be said for it.
It is at this point that the political issues come in, and it has been suggested that we should have insisted on a change in Egyptian policy so far as the Suez Canal was concerned. I have already explained our attitude to this. We deplore the action of Egypt in this matter, and I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the losses so far as Haifa is concerned, although I do not think it can be so serious now, because the supply situation, generally, is a good deal easier. Undoubtedly. however, it has been a loss to us and to other countries which have a right to a share of the output of the Haifa refineries. We protested a number of times about the losses imposed on our shipping, and we have told the Egyptians that we shall be putting in a claim for demurrage losses and other losses caused by them.
It is fair to say that, if we are considering the Haifa situation, we cannot now ignore the position of Iraq, which is the country from which the oil comes and which, of course, has refused to supply it. I am not quite sure whether the Opposition are contending that we should engage in some sort of economic war with Iraq, but I think that would be very difficult. Iraq is an ally of ours, and is again an extremely important territory and we want to see that country in a secure and prosperous condition.

Mr. Eden: I really do not think that question enters into it at all. In respect of Egypt, what has happened is that we have objected to our traffic through the Canal being interfered with. Egypt is stopping our traffic through the Canal which it has the right to use, and all that we want is that our ships should be allowed to go where,-legitimately they have a right to go.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am not saying that it is exactly the same, but I am saying that, if we talk about Haifa, it is perfectly proper to bring in the question of Iraq. In fact, as a result of representations made, we have secured certain modifica-


tions from time to time in the attitude of the Egyptian Government, but we are not the only Government involved in this, and we considered that the United Nations was the right place for this matter to be considered. It has, in fact, already been raised in the Security Council, and Sir Gladwyn Jebb expressed our views very forcibly on this subject.

Mr. Boothby: What happened?

Mr. Gaitskell: It has been referred to the Mixed Armistice Commission, because it is an essential part of the whole complex of problems associated with the war between Israeli, Egypt and Iraq and the other Arab countries We have also considered recourse to legal arbitration, but Egypt has not signed the Statute of the International Court, and we cannot compel her to go to arbitration. Therefore, the right thing is to take her to the Security Council, which is exactly what we have done. I contend, therefore, that since a long-term agreement is obviously to our advantage, if we pay at all, and I think we must pay——

Mr. Paget: What have we got a Navy for if not to see that our ships can go on their lawful occasions at sea?

Mr. Gaitskell: I would only say that that seems to me to beg the whole question which is being put at Lake Success. We cannot really start introducing our Fleet when the matter is under consideration by the United Nations. I do not think it would exactly improve the situation in the Middle East, and, on those grounds, I contend that we were perfectly right in trying to negotiate a long-term settlement.
I am not going to spend much time on the agreement itself—which has received very little attention from anybody—except to make the obvious point that the rate of repayment is £10 million to £13 million a year, compared with an average of £28 million a year in the three previous years. In other words, it certainly reduces very substantially the drain upon our own economy. In fact, it reduces it by about half, and, so far as dollars are concerned, there is a reduction from 22 million to perhaps 18 million dollars compared with what was previously the case.
I am not saying, of course, that all the features of this agreement are equally

satisfactory to us. Indeed, it is very rare to have an agreement in which one gets everything one's own way. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of concessions as though we were making them all the time. We have made some concessions, and the Egyptian Government have made very substantial concessions from the point at which we both started in these negotiations. I do not propose to go into them, but I can assure the House that the Egyptian Government asked for very much more than they are getting. I am not prepared to disclose what it was; it would be quite improper—and the right hon. Gentleman knows that—to disclose exactly what the different proposals were at the different stages.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Would the right hon. Gentleman, as he promised, say why freezing these balances or blocking instead of freeing them, which does not bring repudiation into the matter, was not adopted as a policy?

Mr. Gaitskell: Certainly, I was just coming to that.
The question we have to ask ourselves is whether we are not going to have a settlement, and that really seems to be the point adopted by hon. Members opposite. We have to face the prospects of not getting a settlement, and, that being so, we have, as my hon. Friend said, to consider the implications of such a position. Obviously, there is the possibility —indeed, the certainty—that if we do not get a settlement, before very long we shall reach the point when, in fact, Egypt presents the cheque and we have to dishonour it and say, "We are not going to release the sterling." That is, in effect, what we are bound to face.
That is the first thing. There are some further consequences which we have tried to consider. It is quite obvious that had we taken that course we should soon have found ourselves involved in an economic war with Egypt. Should we really have come out of that war very much strengthened? We spend £60 million a year on cotton alone at the moment. All that cotton would have been dollar invoiced to us. Make no mistake about it, that is what would have happened. The Egyptians would certainly have demanded dollar payment for everything, and our whole trade with them would have gone on to a dollar basis. It so


happens that the things we get from them are essential. They would also, of course, have demanded dollar payments for the expenditure on our military forces in the Canal zone.
I am not saying that we could not have done a lot of daamge to them. We could. Undoubtedly, we could have refused them the facilities of the transfer account in the sterling area. But I cannot help feeling that it would have been very unwise of the Government to have involved themselves in an economic war of that kind. Do hon. Members really believe that in the present state of the Middle East friction of that kind, with refusal to supply on each side and with refusal of financial facilities, would have been any improvement from the political angle for which they are so concerned?
I am bound to say that I should have thought it would be the most stupid policy to adopt in present circumstances. We did, of course, have to consider these possibilities. I suppose there might have been circumstances in which, if the Egyptians have been completely adamant and had insisted on complete repayment of all the balances and the release of all the dollars straight away, we should have had to say to them that we could not do that and risked an economic war. But I am bound to say that, in view of the agreement which has been reached in principle, and which I claim on financial grounds it is highly satisfactory to have, I think we

should have been extremely unwise to have provoked such an appalling state of friction between ourselves and Egypt.

Mr. C. Davies: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, would he answer me this question? Assuming that his arguments are correct, assuming that we owe this debt, assuming that we have to pay it, and assuming that there is no counterclaim, does he still say that it is right for His Majesty's Government, in spite of the appeal made on the other side, to make this as an isolated agreement without regard to anything else?

Mr. Gaitskell: I think it is perfectly right to make a financial agreement of this kind, as we have made other agreements with other countries and with Egypt herself. But that is not to say that I think we should do nothing about all the other political problems between us. Of course not. But the real question is, do we get anywhere except into an economic war, by refusing to have an agreement? That is the issue we have to face. I do not think there is any answer to that, and because I believe that an economic war would have the most disastrous con-sequences, I commend this agreement to the House.

Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."

The House divided: Ayes 294; Noes, 291.

Division No. 63.]
AYES
[7.18 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Brown, George (Belper)
de Freitas, G.


Adams, H. R.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Deer, G.


Albu, A H.
Burke, W, A
Delargy, H. J


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Burton, Miss E.
Diamond. J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Dodds, N. N


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Callaghan, L. J
Donnelly, D.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Carmichael, J.
Driberg, T. E. N


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Castle, Mrs. B A
Dugdale, Rt. Hon John (W Bromwich)


Awbery, S. S.
Champion, A. J.
Dye, S.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Chetwynd, G R
Ede, Rt. Hon. J C.


Baird, J.
Clunie, J.
Edelman, M.


Balfour, A.
Cocks, F. S.
Edwards, W. J (Stepcey)


Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J.
Coldrick, W
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Bartley, P.
Collick, P.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon F. J.
Collindridge, F
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)


Benn, Wedgwood
Cook, T. F.
Ewart, R.


Benson, G.
Cooper, Geoffrey (Middlesbrough, W.)
Fernyhough, E.


Beswick, F.
Cooper, John (Deptford)
Field, Capt. W J.


Bevan, Rt. Hon A (Ebbw Vale)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda (peckham)
Finch, H. J.


Bing, G. H C
Cove, W. G
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Follick, M.


Blyton, W. R.
Crawley, A.
Foot, M. M.


Boardman, H
Crosland, C. A. R
Forman, J. C.


Booth, A.
Crossman, R. H. S
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Bottomley, A. G.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Freeman, John (Watford)


Bowles, F. G (Nuneaton)
Daines, P.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H T N


Brockway, A. F
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Gibson, C. W.


Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Gilzean, A.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Glanville, James (Conselt)




Gooch, E. G.
MacColl, J. E.
Royle, C.


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Shackleton, E. A. A


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
McGovern, J.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
McInnes, J.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Grenfell, D. R.
Mack, J. D.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Grey, C. F.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Simmons, C. J.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McLeavy, F
Slater, J.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanetly)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Snow, J. W.


Gunter, R. J.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Sorensen, R. W.


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank


Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E)
Sparks, J. A.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Steele, T


Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Manuel, A. C.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Hamilton, W. W
Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Hannan, W.
Mellish, R. J.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Hardman, D. R
Messer, F.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith


Hardy, E. A.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hargreaves, A.
Mikardo, Ian
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Harrison, J.
Mitchison, G. R.
Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)


Hastings, S.
Moeran, E. W.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Hayman, F. H.
Monslow, W.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Tipton)
Moody, A. S.
Thomas, Iorworth (Rhondda, W.)


Harbison, Miss M.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Morley, R.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Hobson, C. R.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Thurtle, Ernest


Holman, P.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Timmons, J.


Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Mort, D. L.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Houghton, D.
Moyle, A.
Tomney, F.


Hoy, J.
Mulley, F. W.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Hubbard, T.
Mulvey, A.
Ungoed-Thomas, A. L.


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Murray, J. D.
Usborne, H.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Nally, W.
Vernon, W. F.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Viant, S. P.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P, J.
Wallace, H. W


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
O'Brien, T.
Watkins, T. E.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Oldfield, W. H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Oliver, G. H.
Weitzman, D.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Orbach, M.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Janner, B.
Padley, W. E.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Jay, D. P. T.
Paget, R. T.
West, D. G.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Jenkins, R. H
Pannell, T. C.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Pargiter, G. A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Parker, J.
Wigg, G.


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Paton, J.
Wilkes, L.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Pearson, A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)
Peart, T. F.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)


Keenan, W.
Poole, C.
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Kenyon, C.
Popplewell, E.
Williams, David (Neath)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Porter, G.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr. E
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Kinley, J.
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'lly)


Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Pryde, D. J
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Lang, Gordon
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Rankin, J.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Rees, Mrs. D.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Reeves, J.
Wise, F. J.


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Woods, Rev. G. S.


Lewis, John (Bolton, W.)
Rhodes, H
Wyatt, W. L.


Lindgren, G. S.
Robens, A.
Yates, V. F.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Younger, Hon. K


Logan, D. G.
Robertson. J. J. (Berwick)



Longden, Fred (Small Heath)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McAllister, G.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Mr. Bowden and




Mr. Kenneth Robinson.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cmdr. Gurney


Alport, C. J. M.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bennett, William (Woodside)
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bevins, J. R (Liverpool, Toxteth)
Browne, Jack (Govan)


Arbuthnot, John
Birch, Nigel
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Bishop, F. P
Bullock, Capt. M.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Black, C. W.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E


Astor, Hon. M. L.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Burden, Squadron Leader F. A


Baker, P. A. D.
Boothby, R.
Butcher, H. W.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M
Bossom, A. C
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)


Baldwin, A. E.
Bower, Norman
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)


Banks, Col. C
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Carson, Hon. E.


Baxter, A. B.
Boyle, Sir Edward
Channon, H.


Beamish, Major Tufton
Bracken, Rt. Hon. B
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.


Bell, R. M.
Braine, B R
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)







Clarke, Brig Terence (Portsmouth, W)
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J
Prescott, S.


Clyde, J. L.
Hurd, A. R.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Coiegate, A
Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Conant, Maj R. J. E.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Profumo, J. D.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert (Ilford, S)
Hutchison, Colonel James
Raikes, H. V.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M
Rayner, Brig. R


Corbett, Lt.-Col Uvedale (Ludlow)
Hylton-Foster, H. B.
Redmayne, M.


Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)
Jeffreys, General Sir George
Remnant, Hon. P


Cranborne, Viscount
Jennings, R.
Roberts, Major Peter (Heeley)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Johnson, Major Howard (Kemptown)
Robertson, Sir David (Caithness)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O. E
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, P.)


Crouch, R. F.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon L. W
Robson-Brown, W.


Crowder, Capt. John (Finchley)
Kaberry, D.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Keeling, E. H.
Roper, Sir Harold


Cundiff, F. W.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Ropner, Col. L


Cuthbert, W. N
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col W. H
Ross, Sir Ronald (Londonderry)


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Russell, R. S.


Davidson Viscountess
Lancaster, Col. C G
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Langford-Holt, J
Sandys, Rt. Hon D


Davies, Nigel (Epping)
Law, Rt. Hon R K
Savory, Prof. D. L


de Chair, Somerset
Leather, E. H. C
Scott, Donald


De la Bère, R.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E A H
Shepherd, William


Deedes, W. F.
Lennox-Boyd, A T
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Waller


Digby, S. W.
Lindsay, Martin
Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)


Dodds-Parker, A. D
Linstead, H. N
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Donner, P. W.
Llewellyn, D.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (King's Norton)
Smyth, Brig. J. G (Norwood)


Drayson, G. B.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Snadden, W. McN


Dugdale, Maj. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Soames, Capt C.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J C
Spearman, A. C. M.


Dunglass, Lord
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Duthie, W. S.
Low, A. R. W.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Eccles, D. M.
Lucas. Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard (N Fylde)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Lucas, P, B. (Brentford)
Stevens, G. P.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Erroll, F. J.
McAdden, S. J.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Fisher, Nigel
McCallum, Major D.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Fletcher, Walter (Bury)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M S
Storey, S.


Fort, R.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Foster, John
McKibbin, A.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
MeKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Studholme, H. G


Fraser, Sir I (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Maclay, Hon. John
Summers, G. S.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon Sir David Maxwell
Maclean, Fitzroy
Sutcliffe, H.


Gage, C. H.
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Billhead)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Teeling, W


Gammans, L. D.
Macpherson, Major Niall (Dumfries)
Teevan, T L


Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)
Maitland, Cmdr. J. W
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Gates, Maj. E. E
Manningham-Butler, R. E.
Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)


Glyn, Sir Ralph
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thompson, Lt.-Cmdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Marples, A. E.
Thorneycroft, Peter (Monmouth}


Grimond, J.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N


Grimston, Hon John (St Albans)
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Thorp, Brig. R. A. F.


Grimston, Robert (Westbury)
Maude, Angus (Ealing, S.)
Tilney, John


Harden, J. R. E
Maude, John (Exeter)
Touche, G. C.


Hare, Hon. J. H (Woodbridge)
Maudling R.
Turner, H. F. L.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Medlicott, Brig F,
Turton, R. H.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mellor, Sir John
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Harvey, Air Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Molson, A. H. E.
Vane, W. M. F.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Moore, Lt.-Col., Sir Thomas
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K


Harvie-Watt, Sir G. S
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Vosper, D. F.


Hay, John
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wade, D. W.


Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Heald, Lionel
Nabarro, G.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Maryleborne)


Heath, Edward
Nicholls, Harmar
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nicholson, G.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Higgs, J. M. C.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C-


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Watkinson, 'H.


Hill, Dr Charles (Luton)
Nutting, Anthony
Webbe, Sir Harold


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Oakshott, H. D.
Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Odey, G. W.
While, Baker (Canterbury)


Hollis, M. C.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Williams, Charles (Torquay)


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwien)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Hope, Lord John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Hopkinson, H. L. D'A,
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Wills, G.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.
Osborne, C.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wood, Hon. R.


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
York, C


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N,.)
Pickthorn, K.



Hudson, Rt. Hon. Robert (Southport)
Pitman, I. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hudson, W R. A. (Hull, N.)
Powell, J. Enoch
Mr. Drewe and Brigadier Mackeson.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight

Minutes past Seven o'Clock.